Crisis and Post-Crisis in Rural Territories: Social Change, Challenges and Opportunities in Southern and Mediterranean Europe [1st ed.] 9783030505806, 9783030505813

Citation preview

Fatma Nil Döner Elisabete Figueiredo María Jesús Rivera  Editors

Crisis and Post-Crisis in Rural Territories Social Change, Challenges and Opportunities in Southern and Mediterranean Europe

Crisis and Post-Crisis in Rural Territories

Fatma Nil Döner  •  Elisabete Figueiredo María Jesús Rivera Editors

Crisis and Post-Crisis in Rural Territories Social Change, Challenges and Opportunities in Southern and Mediterranean Europe

Editors Fatma Nil Döner Department of International Relations Istanbul Medeniyet University Istanbul, Turkey María Jesús Rivera Department of Sociology and Social Work University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain

Elisabete Figueiredo Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences University of Aveiro Aveiro, Portugal

ISBN 978-3-030-50580-6    ISBN 978-3-030-50581-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50581-3 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

1 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 Fatma Nil Döner, Elisabete Figueiredo, and María Jesús Rivera 2 Foreign Immigration to Rural Spain: An Exploration of the Precarious Rural Cosmopolitanism in the Post-Crisis Scenario����������������������������������������������������������������������    9 Rosario Sampedro and Luis Camarero 3 The Contribution of Mobilities to the Social Sustainability of Rural Areas in a Context of Crisis: Structural Conditions, Social Diversity and Inequalities������������������������������������������������������������   31 Elvira Sanz Tolosana and Manuel Tomás González Fernández 4 New Rural Residents, Territories for Vital Projects and the Context of the Crisis in Spain ��������������������������������������������������   51 Jesús Oliva and María Jesús Rivera 5 Respatialization of Migrations and Differentiated Ruralities in Times of Crisis in Southern Italy��������������������������������������������������������   73 Alessandra Corrado, Giulio Iocco, and Martina Lo Cascio 6 Return to the Land in Times of Crisis: Experiences, Policies and Narratives in an Inner Periphery of Southern Italy����������������������   97 Carlotta Ebbreo 7 ‘No Choice’ or ‘A Choice’? – An Exploratory Analysis of ‘Back to the Countryside’ Motivations and Adaptation Strategies in Times of Crisis in Greece and Portugal ��������������������������  119 Elisabete Figueiredo, Maria Partalidou, and Stavriani Koutsou 8 Transformative Mobilities and Resilience Dynamics in Rural Coastal Greece in a Time of Recession ����������������������������������  141 Apostolos G. Papadopoulos and Loukia-Maria Fratsea

v

vi

Contents

9 Solidarity and Justice in Local Food Systems: The Transformative Potential of Producer-Consumer Networks in Greece����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  163 Sofia Nikolaidou 10 Villages at the State/Society Interface During the Crisis: Toward New Territorial Boundaries in Metropolitan Municipalities ��������������������������������������������������������������  187 Fatma Nil Döner 11 Concluding Remarks: What Is Next for Rural Areas in the Aftermath of the Crisis? ��������������������������������������������������������������  209 Fatma Nil Döner, Elisabete Figueiredo, and María Jesús Rivera

Chapter 1

Introduction Fatma Nil Döner, Elisabete Figueiredo, and María Jesús Rivera

At the beginning of twenty first century, countries of Southern and Mediterranean Europe were immersed in an uneven process of modernization and globalization, both in the material and cultural sense. This restructuring process has taken a radical hit since the deep crisis faced by Europe over the recent years was particularly harsh in Southern European countries and in its rural territories, already affected by a long lasting process of abandonment and political neglect. The new risks and impacts presented by the financial and economic crisis on rural territories of Southern and Mediterranean Europe emphasise the pertinence of conducting and promoting a network of research and study focused on the analysis of the transformations, challenges, and opportunities for rural territories, in both the crisis and the post-crisis contexts. The European Society for Rural Sociology (ESRS) Research and Study Group (RSG): ‘Southern and Mediterranean Europe: Social Change, Challenges and Opportunities’ (created in 2014), bringing together researchers and scholars from Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Turkey, aim to contribute to foster research, debates and findings on those topics. Born out of the RSG members’ research and debates, this volume wishes to contribute further the so-far limited debate on the processes and dynamics of rural change and on the opportunities and challenges brought by the crisis. F. N. Döner (*) Department of International Relations, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey e-mail: [email protected] E. Figueiredo Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] M. J. Rivera Department of Sociology and Social Work, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 F. N. Döner et al. (eds.), Crisis and Post-Crisis in Rural Territories, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50581-3_1

1

2

F. N. Döner et al.

Globalization is not a new phenomenon for the rural areas (Figueiredo 2013; McCarthy 2008; Woods 2007, 2019). Contrary to popular belief, rural spaces have already been connected to global world through mobilities, market forces, governance and emancipation practices for decades. Within the interplay of local, national, and global actors, new interactions, new political frames of state and society relations, hybridization, and new resilience strategies have emerged (Camarero and Oliva 2016; Scoones 2009; Scoones et al. 2018). Uneven development, mobilities, and rising inequalities through the use of land, labour and financial resources for more competitive and efficient economic activities are the main impacts of globalization on rural areas. However, concurrently these processes operating on multiple scales pose opportunities and manoeuvring spaces as well as constraints and challenges for rural territories (e.g. Scott et al. 2019; Woods 2019; Taylor 2015). Within the context of globalization, economic and financial crisis emerged in 2008 and the global recession afterwards has affected the economically vulnerable rural places enormously (Ragkos et al. 2016). In other words, global processes of crisis led by the priority of neoliberal policies have redesigned the uneven territories of Europe (Papadopoulos 2019). The length and depth of the crisis and the impacts of neoliberal austerity have also reverberated on academic research to investigate constraints and opportunities created by the economic crisis as a major external shock. Due to a well-known set of transformations, especially to the recent economic and financial crisis, rural areas in Southern and Mediterranean European countries immersed in an uneven process of globalization and neoliberalization have been facing numerous challenges. It is clear that the economic recession has instigated the decrease in production, the loss of income, competitiveness, and jobs in the rural areas (e.g. Anthopoulou et al. 2017). Even worse, by following international directives (namely European Union and International Monetary Fund), policies implemented by countries have implied a severe reduction of public support to social welfare and development in rural territories, along with the implementation of a new model of governance (e.g. Ragkos et al. 2016; Murphy and Scott 2014). The outcome is an increasing number of rural areas experiencing a deterioration of living conditions: the closing of schools and health services, depatrimonialization and degradation of commons, impoverishment of population, reduction of public transport facilities, increasing social inequalities, and so forth. Hence, a new scenario is shaped where the sustainability of rural areas and rural population are at stake. These conditions lead to fundamental questioning of how rural areas survive under the destructive effects of external disruptions of the crisis. In a nutshell, the adaptive capacities of rural spaces in the time of crisis through mobilities, resilience strategies and various land use and marketing practices, together with the perception of rural spaces as a “sheltering and protection buffer”, are offering safety nets not only for rural dwellers but also for ex-urbaners (Anthopolou et  al. 2017; Figueiredo et  al. 2019; Hilmi and Burbi 2016; Kasimis and Zografakis 2012; Remoundou et al. 2016). Discussions on new residents, newcomers, counterurbanisation, and return to countryside illustrate peoples’ search for security or better quality of life in rural areas against the current economic downturn (Anthopolou et al. 2017; Gkartzios 2013; Remoundou et al. 2016). Therefore, it is crucial not

1 Introduction

3

only to understand the main challenges against the survival of rural territories, but also to scrutinize the manoeuvring and resilient strategies of rural communities and its old and new populations during the crisis and in the post-crisis (Marsden et al. 2019). The preliminary results of the book highlight how economic crisis has affected the different dynamics of ruralities, such as mobilities and social change, economic diversification and resilience, land use, and access to services and governance. While some of the dynamics in rural territories are challenged by the effects of crisis, some of these factors can develop opportunities and deploy new resources and capacities for rural areas to face the consequences of the crisis (Sánchez-Zamora et al. 2014), bringing new actors, new visions and practices together. Therefore, this book intends to identify, analyse, and discuss the main processes underlying the recent changes and restructuring of rural territories in Southern and Mediterranean European countries, within the scenario of crisis and its consequences. Especially, this work expects to illustrate the adaptability of rural areas to the externally induced shocks while contributing to discussion on the challenges and the opportunities these processes represent for those areas. The five countries – Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Turkey – examined in this volume, despite sharing some common characteristics, equally present some specificities in terms of rural territories, population, employment structure and economic relevance of agriculture. Furthermore, while Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain are full members of the European Union, also subjected to the implementation of its directives, policies and strategies (as the Common Agricultural Policy  – CAP) Turkey is still negotiating its accession after a long lasting and complex process of dialogue. Regarding the totality of the European Union territory, rural areas1 currently represent 44.1%, while intermediate areas represent 44.3% and 11.8% are urban areas. Predominantly rural areas represent the majority of the territory in Portugal (79%) and in Greece (66%) while in Italy and in Spain they correspondingly represent 24% and 16.9% with the intermediate areas occupying, in both countries, the larger part of the total territory (correspondingly 54.4% and 59.8%). In Turkey, predominantly rural areas represent just 5.2% of the country’s whole territory, intermediate areas representing 74.2%. While these differences may be explained, in the case of the EU countries, mainly by different settlement patterns, in Turkey they are more directly connected to the recent changes in legislation and governance of the rural territories (as Döner well explains in Chap. 10). In 2018, 19.2% of the EU population lives in predominantly rural areas, 36.1% in intermediate and 44.7% in predominantly urban ones. However, the distribution of the population by type of region varies greatly between European countries and particularly between the five countries examined in this book. While in all the five 1  Since the middle of the 2000, European Union uses a three-level classification of territories based on population distribution – the rural-urban typology (Eurostat 2018) that includes Predominantly Rural Areas; Intermediate Areas and Predominantly Urban Areas. Data used in this introductory chapter derives from Eurostat (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/home?) and Turkstat (http://www.tuik. gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1007)

4

F. N. Döner et al.

countries more than 45% of the total population is located in predominantly urban areas, in Greece and in Portugal more than 30% of the total population lives in rural regions. Conversely, in Italy, Spain and Turkey less than 10% of the population is settled in rural regions. This again may be explained by the differences in terms of settlement patterns and territorial administration regulations. Between 2008 and 2018, the variation of the population by type of area also reveals some important differences between the five countries. In Greece and in Portugal – the two countries mostly affected by the austerity measures imposed by the IMF and the EU – the population has decreased (or just marginally increased) in all the types of areas, indicating the intensification of emigration movements in both countries especially between 2010 and 2014. Although in Spain emigration equally increased in the same period, population in the urban and intermediate areas has also increased, whereas rural population dramatically decreased. Despite some differences, in both Italy and Turkey the population has increased between 2008 and 2018 in all types of areas but, especially, regarding urban regions. The population working in agriculture, forestry and fisheries in 2018 is, apart from Turkey (14.3%), rather residual in all the five countries considered in this volume, varying from 3.8% in Italy to 6% in Portugal. However, during the last decade  – and apart from Portugal where there was a decrease of 5.4% and from Turkey with a decrease of 7.6% (TurkStat, Labour Force Statistics 2019) – the active population in this sector has slightly increased, especially in Greece (1.2%). This slight increase seems to be followed by an equally marginal growth (apart from Turkey) regarding the contribution of agriculture to the Gross Value Added (GVA) of each country, varying from 1.1% in Greece to 0.1% in Italy. Overall and despite the abovementioned differences, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Turkey share a common and persistent path towards deruralization and deagrarianization and towards the loss of relevance of agriculture in terms of employment and generation of income. This path is more evident in the EU countries in which the CAP had devastating effects, especially regarding small-scale agriculture and peripheral rural areas (Figueiredo 2008). Although the financial and economic crisis has reinforced these dynamics and triggered new ones, rural territories in Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain were already going through a long-lasting crisis. In these countries and contrary to the media and political narratives conveyed especially between 2010 and 2014 (mainly in Greece, Portugal and Spain), the recent crisis did not contribute in a significant manner to prevent the persistent dynamics of rural depopulation and agricultural decline in many regions, in some cases even reinforced those processes. However, as the contributions included in this volume demonstrate, in some areas and communities, newcomers and returnees certainly had an impact, their presence representing at the same time a diverse set of challenges and opportunities to rural sustainability and development. The chapters assembled in this volume address a diversity of topics in relation to the crisis and post-crisis contexts in rural Southern and Mediterranean Europe, often using a qualitative approach. The greater emphasis on a qualitative methodology is related to the need of understanding these processes in a comprehensive and deeper manner also in a context of inexistent or limited statistical data availability

1 Introduction

5

regarding the topics analysed in this volume. These topics include the analysis of the crisis counterurbanisation movements, the examination of the emergence of new rural incomers and mobilities, the exploration of the processes and dynamics of labour and land use, the analysis of resilience strategies, the investigation of different models of rural governance and social services, and the interrogation  of the impacts of changing rural-urban relations. Embedded in these analyses are also  – despite  not being the primary topic of research – the effects of culture in the functioning of economic, political and social structures (e.g. Döner, in this volume). Especially relevant are the ways in which different, and sometimes contrasting, cultural values and practices  can affect the way people design their livelihood, their motivations, and adaptation strategies (e.g. Figueiredo, Partalidou, and Koutsou, in this volume) and interact with others (e.g. Sampedro and Camarero, in this volume). Cultural values and practices may act as a protective barrier against the negative effects of the crisis but also as an additional factor of social and economic discrimination and exclusion. Culture is indeed determinant in the diversity of perceptions of rural territories, rural population and newcomers and migrants (e.g. Sampedro and Camarero; Ebbreo; Corrado, Iocco, and Lo Cascio, in this volume). This book starts with a scrutiny, by Sampedro and Camarero (Chap. 2) on the emerging rural hybridizations in depopulated rural areas in Spain in relation to globalization, mobilities, and increasing social diversity. The authors inspect three main issues: first, the extent of international immigration and its contribution to rural repopulation especially in low-density remote areas; second, the initiatives made by the local authorities and NGOs considering the demands and needs in the settlement process, and third, the issue of social cohesion in rural communities. They argue that new rural and hybrid lifestyles and changing rural livelihoods in low-density settlements may offer opportunities for social cohesion, sustainable lifestyles, quality food production, and environmental protection, if policies that promote acceptance exist. In Chap. 3, Sanz and Fernández address the issue of mobility in the specific context of the crisis by focusing specifically on the role of the structural conditions of the territory, for instance remoteness to the most populated areas, and access to services such as transportation and communication. Based on a comparative research conducted on two different regions of Spain, (a rural mountain area and a peri-urban region) this chapter examines the role of the structural conditions of territories on constructing different strategies of sustainability and resilience based on mobility by their inhabitants. Preliminary results show that there are significant inequalities in access to mobility considering territorial scenario and the impacts of crisis. Oliva and Rivera, in Chap. 4, investigate the impact of the economic and financial crisis on rural territories considering the ways in which it has affected new residents’ experience on the rural communities in the context of crisis and post-crisis. The authors put special emphasis on the ways the crisis become a sort of drive for certain people to move to a rural area as well as on some of the constraints this new context had in their everyday lives. The data and analyses emerge from various

6

F. N. Döner et al.

research projects undertaken in rural areas of Spain during the last years. According to their research, new rural residents’ profiles include different  – and more than expected  – types. Therefore, they inquire how divergent ventures and strategies emerge in rural territories in Spain. In Chap. 5, Corrado, Iocco, and Lo Cascio interrogate the dynamics of restructuring for social and spatial mobility rising in Southern Italy due to migrant movements and economic crisis. By specifically focusing on refugees and foreign labourers this chapter sheds light to how labourers with different origin and administrative status are involved in the development of different models of agri-food chains, based on specific forms of social participation, market connections and value creation. Alternative agri-food networks have supported the development of projects in nested markets but the sustainability of the long-term projects is still debatable. Ebbreo, in Chap. 6, also writing about Southern Italy, focuses on the impacts of the recent crisis on the land governance and reconfiguration of rural territories on the inner periphery of the region, exploring the notion of the “rural as an opportunity in the time of crisis”. The author argues that different patterns of rural transformation (depopulation, concentration, deactivation, and abandonment of land) have had different and varied socio-ecological effect. In addition, demands on land by the newcomers reverberate on the debates of public policies regarding land access and governance. The chapter states that in Madonie region – the case study presented – public and private actors spontaneously constitute land associations. The official goal is to reassemble abandoned or unused lands and forests to promote their sustainable economic value. In Chap. 7, Figueiredo, Partalidou, and Koutsou explore the narratives of former urban dwellers that have returned or moved to the countryside during the crisis, in a comparative perspective between Greece and Portugal. As a result of the economic conditions, the implementation of stability programmes and austerity measures had devastating effects on GDP, employment, and living conditions that were strongly felt in urban areas. Under these conditions, rural areas are often portrayed as a space of refuge from an urban-based crisis and full of opportunities mainly in agriculture and tourism. Based on 24 in-depth interviews conducted in Greece and Portugal, this chapter asserts that current counterurbanisation movements and a wide set of relocation types are, all in all, imbued of diversity and not always connected with the economic factors or with the financial crisis. In Chap. 8, Papadopoulos and Fratsea intend to illustrate the dynamics of local residents’ resilience acts and the challenges that they face for setting up and realizing local development goals in two Greek island communities (Syros and Andros). Following the 2008 economic crisis, rural areas and particularly rural coastal areas and islands in Greece were strongly affected by the decreasing economic activities, but also developed resilience repertoires against emerging challenges. Based on the surveys and in-depth interviews this study deciphers the dynamics of social transformation in the two island communities with special emphasis on the concept of mixed mobilities consisted of international migrants, internal migrants, and religious minorities to understand local interactions and local struggles.

1 Introduction

7

Nikolaidou, in Chap. 9, elucidates the role of the emerging alternative food networks in Greece considering the security and resilience of food systems during economic crisis. Nikolaidou states that in Greece several alternative social movements combining urban and rural areas are struggling for food sovereignty and against poverty, food delocalization and environmental constraints. A series of bottom-­up initiatives, informal networks, and market- oriented activities offer alternative short agri-food chains, education on collective strategies to empower local production, and solidarity based economy by encouraging rural-urban linkages to ensure food security and nutrition of the cities. This research conducted on producer-­ consumer networks in Athens metropolitan area sheds light on the interplay between formal and informal practices, institutional and political environment, and legitimation processes. In Chap. 10, Döner interrogates the effects of the legal changes in rural governance policies on the rural space and services with special emphasis on state-society interface in the countryside of Turkey based on a field-research in Karacabey, Bursa. In Turkey, rural settings have been challenged by various developments in the neoliberal crisis era such as deagrarianization, dispossession, and migration. Moreover, new regulations regarding the legal status of the villages in law result in considerable changes in rural governance and socio-political processes specifically on decision making procedures, use of common goods and land, agricultural production, taxes and payments in return for services provided, and design of rural development policies. Döner explores socio-technical and political arrangements in newly opening scenarios for rural areas in the crisis period. The volume ends with a reflection, by the editors, on the post-crisis challenges and opportunities to rural territories, highlighting the diversity of cases, processes and dynamics of rural transformation and the need, also expressed in most of the Chapters, to conduct further research on these topics particularly (although not exclusively) in Southern and Mediterranean Europe.

References Anthopoulou T, Kaberis N, Petrou M (2017) Aspects and experiences of crisis in rural Greece. Narratives of rural resilience. J Rural Stud 52:1–11 Camarero L, Oliva J (2016) Understanding rural change: mobilities, diversities, and hybridizations. Soc Stud 2:93–112 Eurostat (2018) Urban-rural typology, retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/Archive:Urban-rural_typology Figueiredo E (2008) Imagine there’s no rural: the transformation of rural spaces into places of nature conservation in Portugal. Eur Urban Reg Stud 15(2):159–171 Figueiredo E (2013) McRural, no rural or what rural? – some reflections on rural reconfiguration processes based on the promotion of schist villages network, Portugal. In: Silva L, Figueiredo E (eds) Shaping rural areas in Europe – perceptions and outcomes on the present and the future. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 129–146 Figueiredo E, Partalidou M, Koutsou S (2019) «It’s a different kind of happy» – narratives on the ‘back to the countryside’ motivations and strategies in times of crisis: a comparison between

8

F. N. Döner et al.

Greece and Portugal. In: Libro de Atas del XII Congreso Iberoamericano de Estudios Rurales – Territorios globales, Ruralidades Diversas. AEEA – Asociación Española de Economía Agraria, Segovia, pp 539–542 Gkartzios M (2013) Leaving Athens: narratives of counterurbanisation in times of crisis. J Rural Stud 32:158–167 Hilmi A, Burbi S (2016) Peasant farming, a refuge in times of crisis. Development 59(3):229–236 Kasimis C, Zografakis S (2012) ‘Return to the land’: rural Greece as refuge to crisis. Paper presented at the XIII world congress of rural sociology, July 29 to August 4, 2012, Lisbon, Portugal Marsden T, Moragues Faus A, Sonnino R (2019) Reproducing vulnerabilities in Agri-food systems: tracing the links between governance, financialization, and vulnerability in Europe post 2007–2008. J Agrar Chang 19:82–100 McCarthy J (2008) Rural geography: globalizing the countryside. Prog Hum Geogr 32(1):129–137 Murphy E, Scott M (2014) Household vulnerability in rural areas: results of an index applied during a housing crash, economic crisis and under austerity conditions. Geoforum 51:75–86 Papadopoulos AG (2019) Rural planning and the financial crisis. In: Scott M, Gallent N, Gkartzios M (eds) The Routledge companion to rural planning. Routledge, London/New York, pp 183–191 Ragkos A, Koutsou S, Manousidis T (2016) In search of strategies to face the economic crisis: evidence from Greek farms. South Eur Soc Politics 21(3):319–337 Remoundou K, Gkartzios M, Garrod G (2016) Conceptualizing mobility in times of crisis: towards crisis-led counterurbanization? Reg Stud 501(10):1663–1674 Sánchez-Zamora P, Gallardo-Cobos R, Ceña-Delgado F (2014) Rural areas face the economic crisis: Analyzing the determinants of successful territorial dynamics. J Rural Stud 35:11–25 Scoones I (2009) Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. J Peasant Stud 36(1):171–196 Scoones I, Edelman M, Borras SM Jr, Hall R, Wolford W, White B (2018) Emancipatory rural politics: confronting authoritarian populism. J Peasant Stud 45(1):1–20 Scott M, Gallent N, Gkartzios M (2019) Planning rural futures. In: Scott M, Gallent N, Gkartzios M (eds) The Routledge companion to rural planning. Routledge, London/New York, pp 633–644 Taylor M (2015) The political ecology of climate change adaptation: livelihoods, agrarian change and the conflicts of development. Routledge, New York Woods M (2007) Engaging the global countryside: globalization, hybridity and the reconstitution of rural place. Prog Hum Geogr 31(4):485–507 Woods M (2019) The future of rural places. In: Scott M, Gallent N, Gkartzios M (eds) The Routledge companion to rural planning. Routledge, London/New York, pp 622–632 Fatma Nil Döner  is an Assistant Professor at the Department of International Relations, Istanbul Medeniyet University (Turkey). She intends to analyze rural transformation in Turkey with a multi-disciplinary perspective combining rural sociology, political science, and international political economy. Her research interests include land control, state policies and rural governance, and financialization of rural spaces. Elisabete Figueiredo  is a rural sociologist and Associate Professor with Habilitation at the Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences of the University of Aveiro. She is a Full research at GOVCOPP – research unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies at the same university. Her main research interests are on contrasting social representations of rural areas, traditional food products and rural development and rural tourism impacts. María Jesús Rivera  is Associate Professor at the Department of Sociology and Social Work at the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) in Spain. Her research interests include processes of social change in contemporary rurality, especially those related to the impact of new residents in rural areas, migration to rural areas, processes of social inequality and provision of rural services.

Chapter 2

Foreign Immigration to Rural Spain: An Exploration of the Precarious Rural Cosmopolitanism in the Post-Crisis Scenario Rosario Sampedro and Luis Camarero

2.1  Introduction The rural areas in Europe are characterised by a difficult demographic equilibrium. Different reports indicate the difficulties in attracting and retaining populations (Weist and Leibert 2013; ESPON 2017). Rural depopulation is associated with changes in the demographic composition, with the significant ageing of the population and a notable lack of females among the adults and the young. These demographic imbalances are a serious threat to the social sustainability of rural communities, leading to a vicious circle of economic decline, depopulation and politic irrelevance. In this sense, the Cork Declaration 2.0 alerts us to the difficulty of enacting rural development policies due to the lack of social capital. The ageing society and especially rural ageing create new challenges and a significant change in the economics of services; added to this are the changes in the configuration of work in rural areas. Rural restructuring has meant a reduction of productive family activities and the growth of seasonal waged employment in different sectors, such as agriculture, agribusiness, tourism, hotels, and catering (Camarero and Oliva 2016). The rural job markets are currently characterised by great precariousness (Corrado et al. 2017). In this context of ageing, demographic decline, and high demand for occasional work, the rural areas in all Europe have become places that attract immigrant

R. Sampedro (*) University of Valladolid, Segovia, Spain e-mail: [email protected] L. Camarero National Distance Education University. UNED, Madrid, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 F. N. Döner et al. (eds.), Crisis and Post-Crisis in Rural Territories, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50581-3_2

9

10

R. Sampedro and L. Camarero

populations. The arrival of foreign immigrants is common to many northern countries (de Lima and Wright 2009; Trevena et al. 2013; Hedberg and Haandrikman 2014; Rye 2014) and to southern Europe (Fonseca 2008; Kasimis 2008; Kasimis et al. 2010; Camarero et al. 2011). A great number of papers published focus on the role of immigrants in agrarian work, especially in intensive agriculture for export (Hoggart and Mendoza 1999; Gertel and Sippel 2014; Corrado et  al. 2017; Rye 2014; Górny and Kaczmarczyk 2018). However, others have put the emphasis on the effect that these new residents may have on the survival of rural areas that have experienced serious depopulation (Jentsch et al. 2007; Pinilla et al. 2008; Kasimis 2008; Bayona and Gil 2013). The flows of transnational immigration, whose destination has been above all urban, is now directed at the New Immigration Destinations (NID) (McAreavey 2012; McAreavey and Argent 2018a). The increasing population of foreign origin in rural communities has brought about an increase in the social diversity. In contrast to the homogeneity that has characterised rural life, new and extended spaces have opened up to a cosmopolitan and multicultural presence (Hedberg and Haandrikman 2014). The settlement of the immigrant population is an ambivalent process. On the one hand, it is an opportunity to reverse depopulation and revitalize social and economic life. On the other hand, it can be viewed as a threat to the traditional local identities and a potential source of local conflict. The local authorities and other social stake holders in the local sphere have had to take on the challenge of managing this new source of social diversity. Woods (2018) indicates that transnational migrations have favoured the emergence of a new rural cosmopolitanism. However, this new rural cosmopolitanism is characterised by its precariousness, by its vulnerability in the face of diverse economic, social, political, and cultural risks. As such European rurality is built from the tension between the demands of the population, especially the youth and family groups, and a context of precarious, temporary work in which cultural diversity increases. It appears that this is the central issue of the relationship between new and old residents, the processes of acceptance and settling down of the immigrant population and the institutional welcoming mechanisms for this new population. In Mediterranean Europe these processes occur in circumstances that are dramatically marked by the effects of the 2008 recession; this may be in terms of reduced employment in the sectors in which immigrants work, increases in the reticent and xenophobic attitudes of the local population and in terms of significant cuts in social policies. This article can be categorised in the line of research into the processes of accepting the immigrant population in rural areas. We focus on the role of institutions and the local elite when welcoming the immigrant population to depopulated rural areas in Spain. Through the analysis of the testimonies from mayors, social workers, members of non-governmental organisations and other key participants, we will attempt to analyse the opportunities that appear and the threats hovering over the emergence of the rural cosmopolitism that is necessary for constructing the welcoming rural communities. In the following sections we present our case. In the first place, we show the conceptual framework of our reflection. In the second place, we describe the case

2  Foreign Immigration to Rural Spain: An Exploration of the Precarious Rural…

11

study, as well as the fieldwork and the methodology. Thirdly, we give the results of the analysis from the conversations with mayors, social workers, and other key participants; these are in the context of matters such as their perception of immigrants’ needs and expectations, the way they contribute to the repopulation and survival of the rural areas, and the capacity of the local institutions to promote the mid and long term integration of the immigrants. Fourthly and finally, we discuss the results of the research in the context of the aforementioned conceptual framework.

2.2  C  onceptual Framework: The Immigrant Condition and the Emergence of Rural Cosmopolitanism The incorporation of the immigrants into the labour market in rural areas has been analysed in different and varied contexts. From the agrarian enclaves of the Mediterranean (Gadea et al. 2017) to the fishing industry in northern Europe (Rye 2018), these studies show an important segmentation in the labour market, as the immigrants are concentrated into a limited number of occupations that constitute occupational ethnic niches (Eimermann and Kordel 2018). The working conditions are generally precarious, jobs are characterised by their awfulness, low salaries, long working days, and high levels of administrative irregularities. Pedreño and Riquelme (2006) use the term ethnostratification of the labour market to show the way in which foreigner status is embedded in the composition of class. Different institutional and social mechanisms contribute to maintaining the subordinate situation of the foreign workers and to reproduce the ‘immigrant condition’ (Balibar 1991). For example, Aure et al. (2018) show the importance of proficiency in host society language as a differentiating and stratification element in the organisation of the labour market in rural areas. The uncertain demographic panorama boosts the value of immigration, but in general as indicated in different studies, from a strongly utilitarian perspective that considers immigrants merely as a workforce. Moreover, hierarchies are established among the different types of immigrants, according to their original nationality, work qualifications, and economic entrepreneurialism. Quoting Gilmartin, Woods indicates how the immigrants are divided up into “those who are encouraged, those who are tolerated, those who are expedient and those who are discouraged” (Woods 2018:5). The arrival of immigrants with widely diverse provenances and cultural traditions breaks the cultural homogeneity that has characterised rural areas. Concepts such as global villages (Cid Aguayo 2008), melting pots (Oliva 2010) and translocal ruralities (Hedberg and Carmo 2011) attempt to bring together the superdiversity (McAreavey and Argent 2018a) and the conformity of hybrid ruralities (Camarero and Oliva 2016). Halfacree (2012) previously stated that, when referring to the new residents who have come from urban areas, we help in the appearance of heterolocal identities with the parallel unfolding of cultural ways that are not necessarily in

12

R. Sampedro and L. Camarero

keeping with the location or place of residence. However, the importance of cultural diversity and its impact upon the capacity of development of rural spaces (Krivokapic-Skoko et al. 2018) is habitually hidden and even denied. Along this line of research into cultural diversity in rural areas, Woods (2018) makes an interesting systematisation of the concept of rural cosmopolitanism. Woods starts by distinguishing rural cosmopolitanism as a property of individuals, as a property of rural communities and as a political or ethical project. Rural cosmopolitanism as a property of rural communities is defined in terms of “the collective practice of openness towards difference and diversity, hospitality towards others and conviviality” (Woods 2018:3). In this context rural cosmopolitanism is distanced from the practices whereby immigrants are tolerated as a workforce but are implicitly excluded from other spheres of social and collective community life. In contrast it is reinforced by the growing familiarity with the diversity that the daily dealings with people from other cultures and provenances facilitate, and also the pride with which some rural communities show their ethnic diversity and capacity in order to attract immigrants. The third type of rural cosmopolitanism has a normative component. As and ethic, “cosmopolitanism would seek to expand and politicize our sense of throwntogetherness, and to see in this a rationale for a wider net of engagement and responsibility” (Popke 2011:253). This cosmopolitanism may be promoted by the various branches of the public administration, civic organisations and other social participants. Some characteristics of rural communities favour the emergence of cosmopolitanism; for example, the lack of anonymity, the shared use of singular spaces and services, the absence of residential segregation, common workplaces, and a sense of collective interest in sustaining the community. However, Woods basically characterises rural cosmopolitanism by its precariousness, putting the emphasis on the way we cannot separate what cosmopolitanism ideally should be from what cosmopolitanism is in its imperfect everyday practice. The principal source of precariousness in rural cosmopolitanism lies in the very precarity of the immigrants’ living conditions, the utilitarian view of migration flows and the tendency of indigenous populations to identify integration with cultural assimilation. Some studies illustrate the functioning of this precarious cosmopolitanism. Eimermann and Kardel (2018) show how the difficulty of recognising different lifestyles means that the activities of entrepreneurial immigrants in rural areas are limited to a coethnic network, and they are forced to travel more greatly; for example, in the search for suppliers. In the case of wage earners Rye (2018) indicates the maintenance in parallel of two cultures and two social classes. The immigrants may have a social status within their ethnic community that does not correspond to the one in their local community. The principal issue that Rye and also Eimermann and Kardel show is the exclusion of immigrants from the practices of local consumption. In fact, immigrants’ lifestyles and those of the local indigenous community tend to be perceived as incompatible, transnational lifestyles are inconceivable, and immigrants are not seen as potential consumers. Rye (2018) graphically indicates the relationship between divided identities due to ethnic or national origin, and its equivalent in divided societies. Sethi (2013) shows the sense of discrimination that immigrants in rural Canada have, the lack of connection with the local society, but

2  Foreign Immigration to Rural Spain: An Exploration of the Precarious Rural…

13

contrasts the importance that the coethnic help networks acquire. As Aure et  al. (2018) indicate the foreigners live in surroundings segregated by work and have difficulties in participating in the generation of shared lifestyles; this is to the point that they eventually conform with the idea of temporality “we will stay as long as we have work”. The segmentation of the workplace is on occasions transformed into the segmentation of the spaces for daily activities. The different papers published show similar realities. The utilitarian view of immigration reduces the interest in the cultural contribution of immigrants, in their conditions of life and in their social integration. Søholt et al. (2018) use the term conditioned receptiveness to describe the attitude that the local elite has developed with regard to foreigners. These writers use for their analysis a space composed of two axes. On the one hand it is binomial: retention versus reception. On the other hand, the binomial is inclusion versus exclusion. In their analysis they detect the most frequent attitudes that tend towards retention, that is to say avoiding the immigrants’ leaving, but without either improving or offering conditions so that they stay welcomed. The inclusion stays reduced to the labour market while segregated communities are produced in all the other spheres of social life. In this context the conditional reception refers to the ultimate demand for cultural assimilation. Berg-Nordlie (2018) indicates the importance of mass media in the construction of the collective imagination about the immigrants. Further to the stereotypes or the defence of local lifestyles, the recent arrivals are blamed for not taking the first step in the construction of inclusive societies. With regard to the provision of social services in the rural environment, Pugh (2003) indicates how the growing ethnic and cultural diversity represents an important challenge, since these communities are not free from the appearance of racism and xenophobia. In rural areas ethnic minorities is much more visible. In contrast, individual members of a negatively stereotyped or stigmatised group free themselves from the aforementioned stereotypes within a reduced setting of close and face to face relationships (Pugh 2003: 81). This lack of anonymity does not remove stereotypes, since individuals are expected to adjust to a certain type of behaviour. The pressure to integrate can end up resolving itself by assimilation into the dominant culture, in that the immigrants feel it is very difficult to maintain their own cultural characteristics (de Lima 2011:212). The pressure towards cultural assimilation is a relevant issue, if we consider the different studies that revolve around the experience the new residents have in their lives in the rural environment, and in their mid and long term expectations of settling down (Morén-Alegret 2008; de Lima 2011; Rye 2014; Flynn and Kay 2017). These studies highlight the multidimensional nature of integration, and Morén-­ Alegret (2008) makes three such distinctions. Social integration is related to the quality of the social relationships and the participation in community life. Systematic integration is to do with access to the labour market, to public and private services and relationships with institutions. Habitational integration refers to access to housing and the appraisal of the environmental surroundings. Along the same lines Flynn and Kay (2017) highlight the importance of the emotional and material dimension of integration and the way in which the feeling of emotional and material security

14

R. Sampedro and L. Camarero

in integration play a role in the decisions to establish themselves long term in rural areas. These decisions are the result of open processes which are influenced by multiple factors, so the role of the rural environment in migratory strategies is not in some way determined for the start (Trevena et al. 2013; Flynn and Kay 2017:60). One other fundamental point is the governance of immigration. McAreavey and Argent (2018b) emphasise the scarce social services and employment support that are offered to the recently arrived. They highlight the reductionism which the institutions and the policy-makers act with, assuming a strictly economic perspective. Frequently they fail to recognise the important deficiencies that these areas have to receive new populations. In fact the arrival of new residents with new and different profiles and requirements for social services in small, ageing communities puts stress on the capacity that the local administration has for local social attention (Aure et al. 2018). In this context the reception of new inhabitants does not bring about an opportunity so much as a source of vulnerability, especially due to the residential segregation and the lack of services. Thus, a key issue is the role of the local institutions and regional agencies in welcoming and integrating the immigrant population (Jentsch et al. 2007; de Lima and Wright 2009; Depner and Teixeira 2012; Sethi 2013). Depner and Teixeira (2012) indicate the importance of a greater level of involvement by municipal administrations, as part of a concerted force which must include the providers of local settlement services. It must be borne in mind that even when services specifically orientated to the welcoming of immigrants exist, there are physical, economic and temporary barriers that impede their being taken advantage of. On occasions the very social workers and local political chiefs hold prejudices against certain ethnic minorities which are considered to have a lesser ability to integrate (Sethi 2013:88; Depner and Teixeira 2012:86). The lack of institutional support structures for welcoming and settling the immigrant population is a significant obstacle when constructing welcoming communities. The question of welcoming the immigrant population and the construction of inclusive societies is central to the future of the rural world. In this sense, Woods (2018) emphasizes the need for cosmopolitanism to be actively supported, managed and resourced in rural localities experiencing immigration. Woods also indicates three important sources of precariousness in the current European context. Firstly are the effects of the 2008 recession that reinforced the utilitarian concept of the immigrant worker and that have heightened the competition for scarce employment. Secondly, the politics of austerity have caused a reduction in the resources available to groups and institutions that work for integration. Thirdly is the increase in xenophobia due to the appearance of Islamic terrorism and the so called refugee crisis. The construction of inclusive societies and welcoming communities is fundamental to counteract the perverse effects that the utilitarian concepts of immigration produces for the future of the rural world. Nowadays we find regions with a strong multicultural capacity, with great diversity, and thanks to this, globally connected and with a high capacity for innovation. However, the precariousness of the emerging rural cosmopolitanism leads to an uncertain scenario.

2  Foreign Immigration to Rural Spain: An Exploration of the Precarious Rural…

15

2.3  Case Study: Foreign Immigrants in ‘The Empty Spain’ In this article we present qualitative research carried out in three rural areas in the autonomous region of Castile and León (see Fig. 2.1). In Spain autonomous regions have wide ranging political and administrative autonomy and constitute the second tier of state administration. The 17 autonomous regions that make up the state are in turn divided into 52 provinces and nearly 8000 municipalities. Castile and León is located in the northern hinterland of Spain, and is structured with a very rural population; if is composed of 2248 municipalities and has a population density of 26 inhabitants/km2. 94% of the municipalities have fewer than 2000 inhabitants. With a population density of 7.4 inhabitants/km2 and a high degree of ageing, these smallest municipalities are home to a quarter of the region’s population. For decades the region has undergone a process of depopulation; large tracts of the territory are habitually grouped into what is called “the empty Spain”. The depopulation has become a kind of negative identification sign for the region, and is the subject of great concern for the regional authorities who have put into place various plans and initiatives designed to reverse this trend. Beginning in 2003 with the setting up of a designated committee in the regional parliament, the so called “Agenda para la Población 2010–2020” (Population Agenda 2010–2020) is still currently in force. Foreign immigration, whose presence started to become important in Castile and León especially after 2000, has been seen as an opportunity to reverse the demographic decline. In 2001 a round table for the social and labour incorporation of the immigrant population was set up, and taking part are the regional authorities and the most representative business organisations and trade unions. Since 2003 there have been various plans of action on the subject of immigration, the latest of which corresponds to the period 2018–2021. Moreover, a law exists specifically to the integrate immigrants into the society of Castile and León (Law 3/2013, 28th May 2013). The selection of three areas where the fieldwork was carried out aims to reflect the diversity of the rural environment in the autonomous region. The first area, the Tierras Altas, is located in a mountainous and relatively isolated area in the northwest of the autonomous region and shows a high degree of ageing and of population loss. Its economy rotates around livestock, agro-food industries linked to the transformation of meat products and forestry. The second, the area of Cuéllar, shows very different traits, with a flourishing economy linked to intensive horticulture, and is situated on the axis of communication that unites two important regional urban centres. Its demographic structure is more balanced and it has managed to retain its population in the last few decades, partly due to the settling down of the immigrant population. The third area is the Tierra de Campos, in the north part of the province of Valladolid, and shows intermediate characteristics. Its economy is linked to extensive agriculture and livestock and its population is aged and in decline. It is located at the sides of the major routes in the region, and approximately 1 h from the city of Valladolid, the regional capital; its countryside, with its great plains of cereal, is considered typical of the autonomous region. The main group of residential

16

R. Sampedro and L. Camarero

Tierras Altas

Tierra de Campos

Cuéllar

Fig. 2.1  Location of Castile and León and the areas studied

2  Foreign Immigration to Rural Spain: An Exploration of the Precarious Rural…

17

immigrants in these three areas come from Romania, Bulgaria, Morocco, and Latin America. We carried out a total of 38 in-depth interviews in the chosen areas, 21 of those were with immigrants of different geographical origins and 17 with mayors, social workers, members of civic organisations, and other key participants; these took place between June 2017 and December 2018. In the following pages we essentially refer to the final group. They were contacted and were interviewed by members of our research team, and they were invited to freely express their visions for the immigrant population’s needs and expectations, their contribution to the survival of the rural areas and the capacity of local institutions to facilitate their integration and their mid and long term residence. All those interviewed were recorded and later analysed in accordance with the aforementioned central themes.

2.4  R  esults: Immigrant Population in the Collective Imaginary of Rural Development Among the key interviewees were the mayors, social workers and other employees in the local and regional administration, local development agencies, non-­ governmental organizations and charities that work in support programmes for migrants. All these people are important in the construction of welcoming and rural cosmopolitan communities. The extent to which these people identify with what Woods defines as ethical or normative cosmopolitanism logically reflects in the way the local community perceives and welcomes the immigrant population. By means of the statements we can also identify some on the conditions that are favourable for the emergence of rural cosmopolitanism, and some of the risks and dangers that make this somewhat precarious.

2.4.1  A  Dual and Ambiguous Discourse: Welcome Neighbours Versus Transient Workers In the most depopulated rural areas, the immigrants appear as residents, as a salvation from the real threat of the disappearance of the villages. The situation in the rural environment is recurrently described in terms of being a “dead”, “terminal”, “dying” or with onomatopoeia suggesting a collapse. There is a full awareness of the importance of immigrants to the demographic and economic survival of the rural environment. It’s the village that is dying; it’s that it is dying. What can you do? Look for people, look for people. (Mayor 1)

18

R. Sampedro and L. Camarero They represent something very important that is more people […] in the end they are neighbours, they enhance our community. And they don’t damage. (Mayor 4) It is our interest that these people stay here. Because they are, actually, citizens of [this village]. (Mayor 3)

In these villages, the technicians and politicians in charge adopt a proactive posture in the search and/or welcoming of these new inhabitants. As we have already mentioned in previous publications (Sampedro and Camarero 2018) the mayors play a key role in the provision of work and housing. They also try to mediate with the local population, who are not always aware of the needs of these new residents or of their importance to the life of the villages. They come to ask me if I know of any job going, I help them to speak with whoever […] and I, as mayor, am personally helping them to present the paperwork so that they can obtain a work permit. (Mayor 3)

The second discourse corresponds to the context of dynamism of the population and in the economy, and is based on our case study in intensive agriculture where large numbers of immigrant labour are used. In this case, the immigrants are basically perceived as a labour force. The immigrants are basically viewed as workers who have been useful to maintain the region’s economy. Well, at a given moment it might have been difficult to attend to some services without them. So we can’t refuse them now, it’s clear. They have been very necessary for us. It’s not that we have used them; simply that they have become part of the economy of each of the places … (Mayor 5)

There is a clear division within the collective imaginary between the established population and the temporary workers that come to work in the harvest. Curiously, even the settled immigrant population working in agriculture or in the agro-food industry is not perceived as completely stable. In fact the examples of the established and integrated immigrants are those not linked to agrarian activities, but those whose lifestyles are assimilated into the local middle class. Conversely, the most negative image corresponds to the temporary workers, to those that are criticised for the substandard accommodation where they live. There are people who are very much integrated into industry or companies; for example, lorry drivers or haulage contractors and the like, who have been around for many years and are here indefinitely. I know people whose employers are very content, almost more so than with those from here. Those people won’t go from here. And the families are very integrated, the wives often don’t work but they are integrated. They have signed up their children for sports clubs and so forth, those, those stay here. They have bought, they have already acquired a place to live. But those working in the agro-food industry and who are here temporarily… I don’t know. And there are a lot who have left. Eh? Many have gone. (Local Development Manager 2) Of course, well is complicated to bring people, and people, and people, and they are put into houses where you can’t live. That don’t have water, or electricity or ….And what can you do? […]. In theory someone had to come, a social worker or someone to tell them ‘hey you can’t live here,’ ‘what you’ve got isn’t life’. (Mayor 6)

2  Foreign Immigration to Rural Spain: An Exploration of the Precarious Rural…

19

Faced with the much more active position of the mayors in depopulated areas, the local politicians show some lack of concern and adopt the posture of mere spectators. Empathy is replaced with indifference. There are repeated allusions to not knowing about the specific situations which the immigrants find themselves in, and worryingly even on occasions attitudes that all but correspond to xenophobia. There must be few houses for rent. There must be few because a lot of people come here and ask ‘Do you know if there are houses for rent? […] And well, the housing rental market is scarce. It’s not easy, it’s not easy. (Mayor 5) I don’t know if they put tents or mattresses or how they sleep. I don’t want to know anything about that, as long as they don’t annoy the neighbours. (Mayor 6)

The immigrant workers are absent from the collective imaginary of rural development. Although they are vital for the local agro-food industry, their status as cheap and very temporary labourers is emphasised. In this sense that can even be considered as an obstacle to economic development. They are people, labourers that do a very necessary job for this area, for this company at a given moment in time. And then they go. This money won’t stay here. These people don’t establish themselves in our area. Eh? (Local Development Manager 2) The business owners have turned to immigrants, haven’t they? […] right now there is a lot of unemployment and there has been this recession, well this has finally knocked down the wages in the job market. (Local Development Manager 2)

The majority of the perceptions that the interviewees present in relation to the immigrants are negative, and when they are positive sometimes they are negatively nuanced. For example, as we can see in the following declaration, the immigrant children help fill the rural schools but hold back the learning of the other pupils. There are many foreigners and many foreign children too. The foreigners are saving the schools and the nurseries because we have very few local children. […] they hold you back a lot, of course. A child of ten or twelve years old arrives and does not know Spanish, of course that he holds you back a lot. (Mayor 6)

Despite the existence of two different visions with regard to the immigrant population, we must highlight that in both situations the acceptance of the immigrants is full of ambiguity. The acceptance of immigrants as new neighbours coexists with the idea that they are only the least worst option instead of depopulation. Although not explicitly expressed, the declarations of those interviewed make you realise that the ideal new residents would be young, entrepreneurial, qualified and Spanish. The hierarchy established among the different groups of immigrants also reflect this ideal. The examples of integrated immigrants usually refer those who are qualified, entrepreneurs and economically successful. Who will arrive to the villages? Well, I am not looking down on anyone but they should come people like those young people in the LC (referring to a rural hotel run by young Spanish new residents) it has been the envy of all the villages. (Mayor 1)

20

R. Sampedro and L. Camarero And then we have those that have really stayed. Here the head of nursing at the residential home in this village who is in charge of forty women is Romanian. Well she has specialised, I think she did nursing. (Mayor 3)

On occasions the interviewees show little sympathy for the economic, personal and employment circumstances of the immigrants. They frequently complain about the excessive mobility or the refusal to become self-employed. Even in the most depopulated areas, where you can hear a more empathic attitude towards immigrants, you can hear negative stereotypes. These are above all to do with the idea of abusing social benefits. Another frequent prejudice relates to the perceived uncivil behaviour of the immigrants. They received 400 euros minimum. And more if they have children, a wife and have whatever. They are getting a thousand euros without working, well great. Then they go to Morocco for two months holidays and sometimes they lose benefits because they don’t come to sign on time. And that’s how we carry on. (Mayor 1) There are people who are more complicated. More complicated. Well I don’t know, they have a way of life […]. Noise, ways of celebrating whatever. They don’t take things into account like us, do they? (Mayor 5)

2.4.2  T  he Precariousness of the Immigrant Condition: Work, Housing and Language One of the sources of precariousness with rural cosmopolitanism is the very precarity suffered by immigrants, which is above all residential and work related. The work of immigrants develops in ethnic employment niches, jobs that the Spanish can’t do or don’t want for their harshness, their low salaries, their temporary nature or because they are carried out without any contract. …It is certain that many are working in agriculture and livestock in dreadful conditions […] They work every day of the week, more than eight hours in a normal working day, for an income that maybe is less that 200 euros. [….] many of them are not registered with the social security… (Local Development Manager 1) He returned to his country and said: ‘Look, I am over fifty and have spent fifteen years here and have not been contributing the social security and I am going back to my country’. (Mayor 3)

Job insecurity drives immigrants to frequently move, motivated by the constant search for better working conditions. It is also necessary to occasionally or regularly turn to benefits in order to survive. Both the mobility and the use of benefits are issues that bring about a significant feeling of rejection from the local community. Because you pay him 1000 euros and tomorrow he is offered 1100 euros and goes. He doesn’t say: ‘I’m staying here because I am happy here’, does he? No, he packs and goes. (Mayor 6)

2  Foreign Immigration to Rural Spain: An Exploration of the Precarious Rural…

21

Cattle farmers complain a great deal because they say that they spend a lot of time teaching them. ‘And when they have been taught, they leave’. (Community Educator 1) Sometimes it’s 750–800 euros for a family of five. And it is for feeding five people for a month […] that at the end is sufficient, but when books, clothes and so on have to be paid for, they do not come ends meet. (Social Worker 2) People in the village always say ‘let’s see how long they stay’, ‘in the house they live in and in the work they have,’ ‘let’s see how long they stay’ Well I’ve heard it many times. Then I don’t know, I believe that if they really had dignified conditions they would stay. (Community Educator 1)

The lack of housing for rental for immigrants, and the precarious conditions of those within their grasp are recurrent themes in the declarations of those interviewed. For those working in agriculture, accommodation is usually provided by the employers. The houses were damp, without heating and in dreadful conditions. After working so many hours a day, you get to such a dreadful house. Well, the families in this village left there as soon as they could. (Local Development Manager 1) Those renting are indigenous people. But they are houses that aren’t fit for another purpose. They won’t serve for anything else, if these people don’t use them. (Mayor 6)

A lack of knowledge of Spanish is also one element that puts immigrants in a very vulnerable situation. For women, who are primarily employed in the services sector, speaking Spanish is a condition for accessing employment. The number of men learning to read Spanish is increasing, in order to get a driving licence […]. With women three areas as sewing, cooking and learning Spanish are worked on. […] I can’t give the women work until they can speak Spanish. (Social Worker 2)

As you may gather from the previous declaration, knowing the language is necessary for obtaining the driving licence and logically for having automobility, which is something essential in the rural environment. Not being able to speak Spanish is also a significant obstacle in relating to the local population. In this sense, mastery of the language is a prerequisite for intercultural coexistence. She can’t even say ‘well this child is beautiful,’ or things like that. There are others that speak better and that make attempts to mix with local mothers but she is very limited in her communication. (Community Educator 1)

The opportunities to learn the language are not really great; moreover, they are dictated by the long and irregular working days and the limited time available. The statements from those interviewed concur in identifying the scares resources available to local councils and other local agencies for the development of initiatives aimed at improving living conditions of immigrants. Logically, this complaint is more emphatic in those rural areas most interested in settling the immigrant population. The lack of resources has been aggravated by the cuts in social expenditure that happened after the 2008 recession, and has reinforced the role of civic non-profit organizations and charities in the social welfare of immigrants.

22

R. Sampedro and L. Camarero

2.4.3  The Effects of the Recession During the fieldwork we have observed that the recession has brought about the departure of a significant number of immigrants, who return to their countries of origin or move to new destinations; this is also shown in the statistical analysis carried out so far (Sampedro and Camarero 2016). The cause is the reduction in the job opportunities in two primary employment niches, construction and family agriculture. The worsening of working conditions also influences the decision to leave. Many have left, because of course with the recession in the construction industry the owners of these businesses went bankrupt so the employees had to go. But there are still rather a lot of immigrants. (High School Teacher 1) Yes, there was depopulation. Those who sought work elsewhere left. Bulgarians left, many to their country of origin […] What I mean is that in Bulgaria they have a house, and here they were paying a rent that they couldn’t afford and in the end Bulgaria is where they all have houses paid for. (Social Worker 2)

Those that have stayed after the most difficult years of the recession are perceived as being stable and as such near to the status of “resident”. In this context the coexistence with the local population is viewed as being reasonably good. And for that I believe that many have left, except those that are already here which is a significant population and that don’t foresee leaving and are already settled here and are going to stay and be here. They feel completely local. (Mayor 3)

Unlike what we may think rather often, there doesn’t appear to be competition for jobs. This is because the immigrants continue working in occupational niches for which there aren’t enough local workers, or in jobs that are openly rejected by the indigenous community. There are no confrontations, there are no problems, there is no conflict … […] Yes, why? Because they then work together in [the local company factory], they work together, they are neighbours… (Social Worker 1) The immigrants do jobs that the locals don’t want. Who now wants to work with livestock? (Mayor 4) ‘They are going to take away my job.’ Then they realised that it’s the other way round, that immigrants have many times been necessary as the country needs jobs. Because the population is ageing and the work is frequently physical and it needs young people to do it. (Mayor 3)

However the recession seems to have led to growing competition for benefits, among those being the jobs provided by the councils. This competition for benefits was fed by the increase of social needs but also by the existing negative stereotypes about the misuse that immigrants make of social aid. […] Because it’s not something as important as a conflict, but yes, it exists. It exists for example with grants, with benefits… with the benefits, with the housing…. With the benefits… uffff. For example… with the subject of food banks, no? Well, ‘why are they given

2  Foreign Immigration to Rural Spain: An Exploration of the Precarious Rural…

23

help when they aren’t going to work?’ Well then, sometimes, we have to explain a bit. (Social Worker 1)

2.4.4  Intercultural Coexistence: A Pending Subject One element that may facilitate the flourishing of cosmopolitanism and intercultural coexistence in the rural environment is the greater facility to perceive the immigrants as individuals, rather than members of a given ethnic group. In small villages, in which the groups of immigrants are also small, it is easier to avoid the formation of ghettos whereby groups of immigrants become closed in. In this sense the statements of those interviewed confirm the greater opening towards people in small villages. There, the establishing of personal links between immigrants and the locals only face the specific difficulties of incorporating new members into the established community, and the difficulties seem to resolve themselves relatively easily. Thus my experience is that in a small village the person is more important than the group, isn’t is? (Social Worker 1) Then also in the small villages where there is a Muslim population you are surprised by how well they get on, and that local women and Muslim women laugh together, they tell jokes and funny stories, and sometimes look after each other’s children. (NGO Staff Member 1)

On the other hand, in contexts where there are bigger groups of immigrants, the tendency for the groups to close is greater, as it is to classify people according to their ethnic affiliation and to form ghettos. We have had a problem, well not a problem, for them it was an advantage. It’s that there are a lot. For many of them it’s not necessary to learn Spanish because they can chat with their fellows. (Mayor 4)

The statements of some interviewees suggest that pacific or even cordial coexistence does not always involve a true intercultural harmony. Intercultural coexistence is a goal rather than a reality. Not having the perfect integration, they make their lives normal. But there is not a mix of Spaniards with the immigrants, a mix in participation in the activities of the village. But afterwards the coexistence isn’t bad. (Mayor 4) Moroccan mothers and Spanish mothers come and they treat each other with politeness and respect but they don’t mix. One lot put themselves on one side and the others on the other side. And they don’t mix at all. (Community Educator 1)

The idea of integration appears to be repeatedly identified with cultural assimilation. The satisfaction that is produced by seeing how the immigrants incorporate themselves into the local customs does not produce a corresponding attitude of incorporation of their customs or cultural characteristics. Well then, this year a sixteen year old girl whose mother is Nicaraguan and whose father is from here was the Móndida (a character in the local festival) [….] Last year it was two

24

R. Sampedro and L. Camarero Bulgarian sisters, two girls from here of Bulgarian origin […] and this is what the people from here live saying ‘well you’re with us’. (Social Worker 1) .. And they are already adapting to our customs. The girls, they want to completely imitate what they see here, they want integrate themselves. For me, that is wonderful. In this sense there are no barriers, are there? (Mayor 3) He’s of Moroccan origin. […] He has always worked here, and he is absolutely and totally integrated. He has a Spanish name or has Hispanicised his name, and he is the area’s champion guiñote player (local card game). I would like to say that, for example, at burials he goes to the funeral mass. […] And among his group of friends there are no Moroccans. (Social Worker 1)

In this way the understanding of the customs of the immigrants is achieved voluntarily and spontaneously, without there being specific programmes aimed at promoting interculturality; many times this is due to the lack of resources available to the local administrators. … and we saw that the Muslim workers looked at the sun and knelt down to pray. Of course, the first times we were saying ‘What do they do, God almighty! What fanaticism,’ and then you understand it isn’t fanaticism that it is something they are born with and do quite naturally. (High School Teacher 1) I think there are stereotypes. With the Latin Americans the language barrier does not exist. Then the relationship is easier. But then the stereotype is that they waste a lot, isn’t it? That they have an extravagant standard of living. Do they have? Well I don’t know, probably they do, but probably it’s that we’re more austere; therefore we have to criticise ourselves a bit, don’t we? (Social Worker 1) By having the means we could do much more … (what is done now is) treat them like just another citizen. Specific things are that sometimes we try to produce the edicts in two languages. From some rural development association we help them in learning Spanish. In the school, they get special attention from an educational point of view. What more can we do in a small village? We don’t have specialists. (Mayor 4)

The lack of awareness about the importance of interculturality can mean a problem for the cultural identities of the second generations; this has been indicated by studies carried out in other contexts (de Lima 2011). They straddle two cultures that run in parallel without mixing. Curiously, those interviewed focus the answer to all the problems of integration on the second generations. According to this vision, it is the second generations that, having acquired the Spanish culture, will dissipate the problem of intercultural coexistence. We are coexisting well. But everyone is in their own world. But this is disappearing. This happens among the older ones. The young ones are fully integrated. (Mayor 4) Their children are already from here. A lot of them say it to me: ‘I am from this village, I am from Valladolid, I am from Castile and León and I am Spanish’. And I think that is very important. (Mayor 4) There are some immigrants who only relate with those from their own country and not with many of them either. They don’t have much of a social life. This happens with parents, the

2  Foreign Immigration to Rural Spain: An Exploration of the Precarious Rural…

25

children are one of us. And you know by the surnames they aren’t Spanish or because they have a name which is not common here, they even Hispanicise them, that is very curious, they try to change the letters so that their names appear to be more Spanish. (High School Teacher 1)

2.5  Conclusion Despite the rural depopulation experienced in the region we have studied, the potential of the immigrant population still has not been realised. In general, the case study confirms the tendencies observed in the majority of the studies carried out at European level. The perception of immigrants is dominated by utilitarianism, their cultural contribution is still absent from the collective imaginary of the key players in the local sphere and social integration tends to be identified with cultural assimilation. The statements from mayors, social workers, members of non-governmental organisations, and other key participants suggest that the perception of immigrants varies substantially; it depends on the degree to which depopulation appears as a real and tangible threat in rural communities. In short, we might say that the threat of depopulation is related to the idea that the immigrants are fundamentally residents, with a sentiment of empathy and with a proactive attitude in their being attracted, welcomed and defended, against the possible distrust of the local population. On the other hand, in situations where depopulation doesn’t seem to be a problem, immigrants are basically perceived as workers that come and go; they are viewed with indifference or suspicion, and even before their arrival a passive attitude of mere spectators is adopted. Even in those places where the vital demographic contribution of the foreign immigrants is recognised, they are implicitly compared to the ideal potential settler who would be young, qualified, entrepreneurial, and Spanish. With respect to this ideal, hierarchies of desirability are established for different national groups of immigrants. The statements of those interviewed often reflect the difficulty they have in understanding the precarious economic and employment situation of the immigrants and above all some of its consequences; for example, their intense mobility to seek better employment conditions, locations with better services or better proximity to coethnic support networks and their occasional or recurrent need for social benefits in order to survive. The stereotypes and prejudices regarding the immigrant population abound in the statements of those interviewed, and in some cases attitudes approaching xenophobia have been perceived. Thus, the research confirms that one source of precariousness of rural cosmopolitanism is the very precarity of living conditions of immigrant population. With regard to the precarity suffered by immigrants, the results of our research reflect the harsh working conditions, the difficulties to access decent housing and the frequent irregularities with the development of work. The recession seems not to have caused any competition for jobs, since the immigrants continue working in

26

R. Sampedro and L. Camarero

ethnic occupational niches, rather there is a reduction in or a worsening of the job opportunities and a greater dependence on benefits. So, the recession has meant an important obstacle to the flourishing of rural cosmopolitanism, especially by the increase of reluctant attitudes from the local population with regard to the alleged abuse of social benefits by immigrants. The recession has also brought significant cuts in the resources available to social policies. The institutional intervention with regard to the welcoming of the immigrant population varies between voluntarism in the most depopulated rural areas and passivity whereby the immigrants are basically viewed as workers. The lack of resources and planned intervention by the local agencies means that the civic organisations play an important role in attending the immigrant population, although this assistance is focused on the resolution of difficult social situations on the individual and family scale. We might say that following the proposal by Søholt et al. (2018) the lack of a welcoming policy at a local level predominates retentive practices. In rural areas with high depopulation there is a situation of conditional reception on the inclusion-exclusion axis, by means of the pressure of cultural assimilitation. In the case of the environments where immigration is more closely linked to intensive agriculture, there is exclusion related to a lack of empathy, the absence of immigrant population in the collective imaginary of rural development and a proliferation of stereotypes and negative prejudices. One of the main obstacles for constructing the cosmopolitan and welcoming communities is the lack of intercultural comprehension. The culture of the immigrants is simply tolerated without any real intercultural coexistence of the immigrant and local population. In the mind-sets of the key participants integration is automatically produced by the assimilation of the second generations. This lack of recognition of the others’ culture may inflame feelings of being uprooted, both in these second generations and in the parents who wish to keep their culture alive. If we take into account the importance of emotional aspects in the decision of immigrants to settle mid and long term, the absence of an actual intercultural coexistence may feed rural depopulation. The lack of social practices and institutional mechanisms capable of promoting interculturality unite with the difficulty of recognising the immigrants as entrepreneurs or consumers. This frustrates the economic and cultural potential and the capacity of innovation that surrounds this new social diversity. Immigration is not only able to reduce depopulation in rural areas, but it can also reactivate the connection of the rural areas with the globalised world. Nevertheless, to do so it is vital to design and enact welcoming policies by means of cooperation among local, regional and national authorities, and between public and private actors. This is the way to support actively the frail rural cosmopolitanism. Acknowledgements  This study forms part of the Project “Recession and immigration in the rural environment of Castile and León” (CSO2015-67525-R, MINECO/FEDER). This is a research project financed for the period 2015–2018 in the State RDI Programme orientated at the Challenges of Society. The project is incorporated into the IsoRural Network of Excellence (CSO2016-61728-REDT).

2  Foreign Immigration to Rural Spain: An Exploration of the Precarious Rural…

27

References Aure M, Førde A, Magnussen T (2018) Will migrant workers rescue rural regions? Challenges of creating stability through mobility. J Rural Stud 60:52–59 Balibar E (1991) Racism and crisis. In: Balibar E, Wallerstein I (eds) Race, nation, class. Ambiguous identities. Verso, London, pp 217–227 Bayona J, Gil F (2013) Is foreign immigration the solution to rural depopulation? Sociol Rural 53(1):26–51 Berg-Nordlie M (2018) New in town. Small-town media discourses on immigrants and immigration. J Rural Stud 64:210–219 Camarero L, Oliva J (2016) Understanding rural change: Mobilities, diversities and hybridizations. Sociální studia/Social Studies 13(2):93–112 Camarero L, Sampedro R, Oliva J (2011) Foreigners, neighbours, immigrants: translocal mobilities in rural areas in Spain. In: Hedberg C, do Carmo R (eds) Translocal ruralism: mobility and connectivity in European rural spaces. Springer, New York, pp 143–162 Cid-Aguayo B (2008) Global villages and rural cosmopolitanism: exploring global ruralities. Globalizations 5(4):541–554 Corrado A, de Castro C, Perrota D (2017) Migration and agriculture. Mobility and change in the Mediterranean area. Routledge, London de Lima P (2011) Boundary crossing: migration, belonging/‘un-belonging’ in rural Scotland. In: Hedberg C, do Carmo R (eds) Translocal ruralism: mobility and connectivity in European rural spaces. Springer, London, pp 203–217 de Lima P, Wright S (2009) Welcoming migrants: migrant labour in rural Scotland. Soc Policy Soc 8(3):391–404 Depner W, Teixeira C (2012) Welcoming communities? An assessment of community services in attracting and retaining immigrants in the South Okanagan Valley (British Columbia, Canada), with policy recommendations. J Rural Commun Dev 7(2):72–97 Eimermann M, Kordel S (2018) International lifestyle migrant entrepreneurs in two new immigration destinations: understanding their evolving mix of embeddedness. J Rural Stud 64:241–252 ESPON (2017) Shrinking rural regions in Europe towards smart and innovative approaches to regional development challenges in depopulating rural regions. ESPON EGCT, Luxembourg Flynn M, Kay R (2017) Migrants’ experiences of material and emotional security in rural Scotland: implications for longer-term settlement. J Rural Stud 52:56–65 Fonseca M (2008) New waves of immigration to small towns and rural areas in Portugal. Popul Space Place 14:525–535 Gadea E, Pedreño A, de Castro C (2017) Producing and mobilizing vulnerable workers. The agribusiness of the region of Murcia, Spain. In: Corrado A, de Castro C, Perrotta D (eds) Migration and agriculture: mobility and change in the Mediterranean area. Routledge, London, pp 79–94 Gertel J, Sippel S (2014) Seasonal workers in Mediterranean agriculture. The social costs of eating fresh. Routledge, London Górny A, Kaczmarczyk P (2018) A known but uncertain path: the role of foreign labour in polish agriculture. J Rural Stud 64:177–188 Halfacree K (2012) Heterolocal identities? Counter-urbanisation, second homes, and rural consumption in the era of mobilities. Popul Space Place 18:209–224 Hedberg C, Carmo R (2011) ‘Translocal Ruralism’: mobility and connectivity in European rural space. Springer, Dordrecht Hedberg C, Haandrikman K (2014) Repopulation of the Swedish countryside: globalisation by international migration. J Rural Stud 34:128–138 Hoggart K, Mendoza C (1999) African immigrant workers in Spanish agriculture. Sociol Rural 39(4):538–562 Jentsch B, de Lima P, MacDonald B (2007) Migrant workers in rural Scotland: going to the middle of nowhere. Int J Multicult Soc 9(1):35–53

28

R. Sampedro and L. Camarero

Kasimis C (2008) Survival and expansion. Migrants in Greek rural regions. Popul Space Place 14:511–524 Kasimis C, Papadoulos A, Pappas C (2010) Gaining from rural migrants: migrant employment strategies and socioeconomic implications for rural labour markets. Sociol Rural 50(3):258–276 Krivokapic-Skoko B, Reid C, Collins J (2018) Rural cosmopolitism in Australia. J Rural Stud 64:153–163 McAreavey R (2012) Resistance or resilience? Tracking the pathway of recent arrivals to a ‘new’ rural destination. Sociol Rural 52(4):488–507 McAreavey R, Argent N (2018a) Migrant integration in rural new immigration destinations: an institutional and triangular perspective. J Rural Stud 64:267–275 McAreavey R, Argent N (2018b) New immigration destinations (NID) unravelling the challenges and opportunities for migrants and for host communities. J Rural Stud 64:148–152 Moren-Alegret R (2008) Ruralphilia and urbophobia versus urbophilia and ruralphobia? Lessons from immigrant integration processes in small towns and rural areas in Spain. Popul Space Place 14:537–552 Oliva J (2010) Rural melting-pots, mobilities and fragilities: reflections on the Spanish case. Sociol Rural 50(3):277–295 Pedreño A, Riquelme P (2006) La condición inmigrante de los trabajadores rurales. Revista Española de Estudios Agrosociales y Pesqueros 211:189–238 Pinilla V, Ayuda M, Sáez L (2008) Rural depopulation and the migration turnaround in Mediterranean Western Europe: a case study in Aragon. J Rural Commun Dev 3:1–22 Popke J (2011) Latino migration and neoliberalism in the U.S. South: notes toward a rural cosmopolitanism. Southeast Geogr 51:242–259 Pugh R (2003) Considering the countryside: is there a case for rural social work? Br J Soc Work 33:67–85 Rye J (2014) The Western European countryside from an Eastern European perspective: case of migrant workers in Norwegian agriculture. Eur Countryside 6(4):327–346 Rye J (2018) Labour migrants and rural change: the “mobility transformation” of Hitra/Frøya, Norway, 2005–2015. J Rural Stud 64:189–199 Sampedro R, Camarero L (2016) Inmigrantes, estrategias familiares y arraigo: las lecciones de la crisis en las áreas rurales. Migraciones 40:3–31 Sampedro R, Camarero L (2018) Foreign immigrants in depopulated rural areas: local social services and the construction of welcoming communities. Soc Incl 6(3):337–346 Sethi B (2013) Newcomer resettlement in a globalized world: the role of social workers in building inclusive societies. Crit Soc Work 14(1):81–100 Søholt S, Stenbacka S, Nørgaard H (2018) Conditioned receptiveness: nordic rural elite perceptions of immigrant contributions to local resilience. J Rural Stud 64:220–229 Trevena P, McGhee D, Heath S (2013) Location, location? A critical examination of patterns and determinants of internal mobility amongst post-accession polish migrants in the UK.  Popul Space Place 19(6):671–687 Weist K, Leibert T (2013) Selective migration and unbalanced sex ratio in rural regions. SEMIGRA. ESPON & Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography, Leibniz Woods M (2018) Precarious rural cosmopolitanism: negotiating globalization, migration and diversity in Irish small towns. J Rural Stud 64:164–176 Rosario Sampedro  is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Valladolid (Spain). Her research is primarily on rural sociology and gender issues, with a focus on the different dimensions of mobility as a key factor of current rural societies. At present she is involved in research projects focusing on the settlement of foreign immigrants in rural areas in Spain as a way to better understand the underlying conditions for social sustainability and the economic development of rural communities.

2  Foreign Immigration to Rural Spain: An Exploration of the Precarious Rural…

29

Luis Camarero  is a Sociologist and Professor at the Theory, Methodology and Social Change Department, National University of Distance Education (Madrid). He has conducted several research projects on the demographic and socioeconomic transformations of southern European rural areas. He is author of several books and articles focusing on social sustainability in rural areas and on the new social inequalities related both to gender issues and mobility.

Chapter 3

The Contribution of Mobilities to the Social Sustainability of Rural Areas in a Context of Crisis: Structural Conditions, Social Diversity and Inequalities Elvira Sanz Tolosana and Manuel Tomás González Fernández

3.1  Introduction While the classics compared the rurality with “a pond with tiny streams of influx and outflux, and with the particles relatively stagnant and immobile” (Sorokin and Zimmerman 1929: 28), the residential mobility and above all, the daily mobility has become an inseparable element of the contemporary rurality. It is higher than among the urban population (Pucher and Renne 2005; Hedberg and do Carmo 2012; Camarero et al. 2016) and has also reached the point where it proves to be indispensable for their survival: The different morphologies and social landscapes contained by the rural areas can hardly be understood without considering the flows of information, people and capital that configure the new post-global territories. These mobilities determine the sustainability of the demographic structures, regional economies and the forms of governance that are necessary to guarantee their future (Oliva and Camarero 2018: 10).

Therefore, the mobility draws new rural social landscapes and geographies that deserve sociological attention. For this reason, this chapter addresses the issue of mobility in the specific context of crisis, confronting and questioning the role of different structural conditions of the rural territory – its greater or lesser distance to the more populated areas, the greater or lesser availability of roads or means of

E. Sanz Tolosana (*) Institute for Advanced Social Research, Public University of Navarra (UPNA), Pamplona, Spain e-mail: [email protected] M. T. González Fernández Department of Sociology, Pablo de Olavide University (UPO), Sevilla, Spain © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 F. N. Döner et al. (eds.), Crisis and Post-Crisis in Rural Territories, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50581-3_3

31

32

E. Sanz Tolosana and M. T. González Fernández

communication, services, etc. – with the objective of exploring the role played by those conditions in explaining how different inhabitant profiles deploy daily or frequent mobility strategies, many of them developed as a result of adaptative practices, linked to the effects of sharp decline in employment and other recession effects. To this end, a comparative research has been carried out between a rural mountain area: valleys of Roncal, Salazar and Aezkoa in the Navarran Pyrenees; and another one of a peri-urban nature: Gran Vega de Sevilla in Andalusia (Oliva 2018), with the aim of testing the relationship established between the different structural conditions of both territories and the different accounts about strategies of sustainability and resilience based on mobility deployed by their inhabitants following the crisis. Rural Mobility and Crisis The current importance of mobility for the rural environment establishes itself over a historical process of social and technological transformations, which go from the territorial modernisation to the incorporation into the neoliberal framework (Camarero et  al. 2016), genuinely represented by the automobility (Urry 2004). This has allowed substituting the myth of the immobility as mentioned above with the “hypermobility” of the rural populations (Milbourne and Kitchen 2014). But the mobility, especially when it involves means of transport, is a resource and not an inherent condition of the subjects. Therefore, according to the different capacities of people or groups to the mobility due to structural, economic, generational or gender-related factors, among others, it can become a mechanism of social diversification, if not of inequality and exclusion (Cass et  al. 2005; European Commission 2008a, b, 2011). The importance of different forms of mobility as well as its impacts in terms of major or minor social inequality have been conditioned in the last decade by the context of recession. The economic and financial crisis has adapted different forms, affecting unequally the European countries. The Southern countries  – especially Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain – and the Eastern ones have been the most damaged by it (Karanikolos et al. 2016). The crisis has increased the existing gap between the North and the South of Europe in relation to the Human Development Index (HDI) and the distribution of wealth according to the Gini Index. Thus, since the beginning of the crisis (2007–2008) an important growth of income inequality has become evident, increasing the social inequalities. For its part, Spain has confirmed itself as one of the most unequal countries of its context. For the first time in decades, Spain’s HDI did not increase, and the rate of the poverty threshold has passed over these 10 years from 19.70% to 22.30%. At the same time, the country suffered a pronounced growth of unemployment, which reached 26.94% in the first quarter of 2013. The situation was additionally aggravated by a generalised fall of wage incomes, the short term contracts and one of the lowest minimum wages of Europe. The crisis has also eroded significantly the welfare state as a reaction to the increase of the public debt. In the rural areas, the cuts have caused fundamentally a reduction in the service provision (healthcare, education and social benefits) and the

3  The Contribution of Mobilities to the Social Sustainability of Rural Areas in…

33

stoppage of projects and investments in equipments and infrastructures, which has increased the territorial inequality. In this context, the recession in the beginning of the twenty-first century presents a diabolic paradox since the need of mobility in the rural environment intensifies. This is due to the reduction of resources in the labour markets and in the provision of private services: fundamentally banks, shops, transports; and above all, in the public services: education and healthcare (Camarero et al. 2016), as the services are reduced and the prices are increased in the public transport, while at the same time, the fuel costs rise in the private. Among other consequences, the transport has been one of the most crisis-affected expenditure items of the Spanish households. The proportion of budget dedicated to transport costs reduced in the majority of households with a few exceptions: the households of the poorest quintile could not reduce their transport costs, which increased from 8.3% of their total expenditure (2007) to 9.6% (2013). Conversely, the effect of crisis has been the opposite for the richest quintile: their costs diminished from 21% in 2007 to 15.7% in 2013 (Cascajo et al. 2018). Furthermore, it is highlighted that the rural population has a greater difficulty in changing their mobility practises, since this group reduced the expenditure by only 9%, while the urban residents saved up to 25% (Cascajo et al. 2018; Smith et al. 2012). These facts spotlight the dependence on the car and the few or nonexistent alternatives to the private automobility – the “forced car ownership” (Currie 2009) – in the rural areas. Ultimately, the poorest and rural households, whose vulnerability has potentially increased in the context of unemployment and cuts to services, have been the least able to reduce their transport costs. It emphasises the importance of mobility as a factor of sustainability and resilience of the rural areas in the context of crisis.

3.2  Methodology The aim of the following is to respond the question, whether different territorial structures generate distinct discourses about strategies and forms of daily and residential mobility in the context of crisis or on the contrary, if the different social features of the rural habitants explain such differences. The empirical materials used in this chapter originate from the project of investigation “Mobilities, social diversity and sustainability. The challenges of the European agenda for rural development”. The research has employed a qualitative methodological approach, consisting of conducting semi-structured interviews with different population profiles. A total of 53 interviews were conducted in the two territories. On one hand, expert profiles were selected (institutional leaders) and key informants (technical staff and professional people). On the other hand, interviews

34

E. Sanz Tolosana and M. T. González Fernández

were carried out with defined sociological profiles concerning the residential biography, gender, age, labour and familiar and economic strategies.1 For this chapter, a specific exploitation of a selection of thematic codes was conducted. It was fundamentally about those related to the effects of the crisis on the mobility strategies. The intention was to analyse the content of the discourses regarding the proposed questions, as well as to establish comparisons between the positions of different interviewee profiles with a special attention given to the most vulnerable ones.

3.3  P  eri-Urban Areas and Mountain Ruralities: La Vega de Sevilla (Andalusia) and the Pyrenean Valleys (Navarre) In Spain, there is no homogenous reality in the structure of the rurality. The diversity covers metropolitan ruralities, others inserted in dense networks of activity and all kinds of flows, as well as areas with markedly decadent characteristics that are increasingly uninhabited. In absolute terms, the Spanish rural population has remained stable since the 90s until present days, although it has lost weight in the population as a whole (Del Pino and Camarero 2017). After the widespread rural exodus of the previous decades, different factors explain this relatively resilient behaviour: residential moves, commuting, international migration flows, public development policies, general tendency to decentralisation, improvement of transport infrastructures, development of information and communication technologies, private automobility, etc. (González et al. 2018). Even so, the general picture of the Spanish rural population is marked by ageing and masculinisation, these processes being more visible in a large part of the interior of the peninsula. (Delgado and Martínez 2017; Bodoque 2017; Camarero et al. 2009; Sampedro and Camarero 2016). In the economic field, the rural environment in Spain has undergone significant transformations over the last decades, starting with the agricultural sector, where a sharp reduction of employment is acknowledged. This is why there is talk of deagrarianisation in demographic terms. At the same time, production and productivity are increasing in absolute terms (Camarero and González 2005), just as the concern for the environmental and ecological dimension of agriculture (Guzmán et al. 2000). Also a significant diversification of the rural economies has taken place and turned into a noticeable outsourcing and a progressive alignment with the post-productivist and territorialised models or patrons (González and Camarero 1999; González 2002; Camarero and González 2005; Aguilar 2014). Within this general setting, the south of Spain and particularly Andalusia present a differentiated situation by virtue of a structure with more populated nuclei due to

1  The project (CSO2012-37540) was financed by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (National Plan of R&D) and directed by Jesús Oliva. The complete account of the interviews and the profiles is available in Oliva (2018).

3  The Contribution of Mobilities to the Social Sustainability of Rural Areas in…

35

a bigger average size and a greater fertility, that are also less aged than the rest of the state (Camarero et al. 2009). Despite this, they reflect a similar situation regarding the gender inequalities (Gálvez and Matus 2012), often indicating the ultimate cause of the demographic imbalances that affect the Spanish rural areas (Camarero and Sampedro 2008). For its part, from a regional perspective the rurality of Navarre would integrate into the model of rurality that Camarero et al. (2009) have defined as “liquid”, configuring a diffuse territory, where the settlements form a very interrelated network and which is characterised by an elevated pendular mobility, a certain selective attraction of population and the development of a wide spectrum of new, dispersed activities throughout the territory. In this context, the two case studies are respectively inserted, showing a pronounced contrast from a formal and structural point of view. On one hand, La Vega de Sevilla, a peri-urban region that is historically and territorially structured around the agriculture due to its advantageous conditions, in which temporarily and in spatial terms progressively, metropolitan uses have overlapped. These uses have been fundamentally productive, commercial and residential, in addition to the transport

Fig. 3.1  Location of the two areas in Spain. (Source: Prepared by the authors)

36

E. Sanz Tolosana and M. T. González Fernández

Fig. 3.2  Alcalá del Río, Vega de Sevilla. (Source: https://www.flickr.com Eloy Mejías. Alcalá del Río, Sevilla. Aerial photo. 31/07/2018. Photo of public domain (copyright-free))

infrastructures. On the other hand, the Pyrenean valleys represent a remote rurality, reforced by the location at the frontier, where the traditionally hegemonic farming sector reconfigures its transcendence by the role in the maintenance of landscape, in the face of the predominant residential, touristic, and environmental uses (Fig. 3.1). In what follows, we look into the characterisation of both regions of study (Fig. 3.2).

3.3.1  G  ran Vega de Sevilla: The Configuration of the Peri-Urban Rurality The analysed district covers an area of 1274 km2 with 15,7357 inhabitants in 2017 (IECA 2017) and conforms a unity in the face of the implementation of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), managed by the Local Action Group (LAG) “Gran Vega”. Yet there is a very evident differentiation between the municipalities closer to the metropolitan area of Seville, which are functionally integrated into it through the provision of services and especially of housing, and the more peripheral ones. In the latter ones, the agricultural employment has more presence and ageing is more common, even though in the region a certain diversification is dominant, the service sector being prevailing. Apart from the mentioned activities, the relative importance of construction stands out in spite of the especially intense effects of the economic recession in the sector. La Vega presents an articulated population in terms of both daily as well as residential mobility. As Feria Toribio (2010) points out, the metropolitan area of Seville configures itself as a space of commuting from the 90s onwards in order to generate the processes of population expansion, originating from the provincial capital, that affect primarily the metropolitan municipalities. According to Pérez et al. (2018:

3  The Contribution of Mobilities to the Social Sustainability of Rural Areas in…

37

Fig. 3.3  Burgui, the Roncal valley. (Source: Prepared by the authors)

86–87) these dynamics stop when a crisis occurs and generates what they call “frozen counter-urbanisation”. That shows the effects of the economic recession on construction, which are marked on the territory by the “ghost” infrastructures of failed residential, commercial and industrial projects. As a consequence, La Vega de Sevilla features a diversity of scenarios due to its geographic location, from metropolitan spaces of residential function to modernised, well-connected agricultural areas, and thus intense phenomena of counter-­ urbanisation and commuting take place. This is strengthened by the different forms that the residential and entrepreneurial expansion acquires between perfectly planned areas and irregular settlements, due to the fragmentation of the territorial management structures, mixture of landscapes and infrastructures, and the competition between different land uses. Thus, in this space emerges a variety of residential phenomena and types of mobility, pointing to the great diversity of present agents and strategies in the area, and connecting with the model of “liquid rurality” to which Camarero et al. (2009) refer to on a larger scale (Fig. 3.3).

3.3.2  Multifunctionality of the Mountain Areas The valleys of the Navarran mountains are a territory valued for their natural, landscape and patrimonial resources, whose principal challenges are demographic imbalances and scarce economic development. They are a border area that agglutinates the principal difficulties of the mountain rurality: complicated terrain,

38

E. Sanz Tolosana and M. T. González Fernández

peripheral nature, sparse population, demographic deficiencies, etc. In contrast to the situation in La Vega de Sevilla, the valleys are composed of small municipalities far from the service centres and disconnected from the principal communication routes, where the accessibility and the transport networks are poor. Consequently, the local population has to commute imperatively in order to obtain services from the most basic ones (grocery shopping, pharmacy, school, health centre, etc.) to the high standard ones (e.g. hospitals or universities), trying to organise the daily life with severe limitations. The total population of 3175 inhabitants (IEN 2017) is distributed between 25 municipalities and other demographic entities over an extension of 925 km2. It is ageing and masculinised, which points to depopulation: there has been a loss of 21.45% in the last 18 years. In fact, the depopulation is perceived as the principal threat as the territory breaks up, degrading the production system (lack of investments, initiative, renovation) and causing devaluation or loss of the public core services (educational, health, cultural), which finally leads to a social dismemberment. The decline of social and economic structure of the territory translates also to the lack of opportunities for women and young people, the weakening and the scarce diversification of business fabric or the crisis in the primary sector. However, these recessive dynamics coexist with an increasing social diversity, sustained by the arrival of new residents and the important floating population (commuters, immigrants, local people who relocate on weekends and holidays, summer vacationers, tourists). The new “economies of signs and space” (Lash and Urry 1994) infer a revaluation of the territory, which with the development of the information and communication technologies as well as the improvement of the transport routes entails new residential, migratory and labour strategies (Sanz and Martínez 2018; Sanz 2009), not anymore exclusively protagonised by the locals.

3.4  D  iscourses on Ruralities and Mobilities in a Context of Crisis; Territory, Social Conditions and Vulnerability The data exposed until now highlight the stark contrast between both case studies in geographic, demographic, economic, and infrastructural terms. Consequently, the ways to focus on the mobility in each area given its strategic character should reveal distinctive perceptions of the impact of crisis according to the structural differences. With this object, a discourse analysis of the available qualitative material has been conducted. The results of the analysis have been clustered into two big thematic blocks. In this manner, a local perception regarding the impact of crisis in each territory is exposed in order to hereafter analyse the conditions and strategies of mobility of the different social groups, paying special attention to the most disadvantaged ones.

3  The Contribution of Mobilities to the Social Sustainability of Rural Areas in…

39

3.4.1  Social Narratives Regarding the Crisis 3.4.1.1  T  he Recession in the Peri-Urban Rurality: Between the Vulnerability and the Resilience Even though the crisis has implied transversally important cuts in the provision of basic services in the welfare state – “you get sick in the morning and arrive there and the doors of the health centre are closed (GVE04)”-, the complexity of La Vega and the local differences regarding demographic, residential, and socio-economic issues favour the effects of the recession in the territory being represented in a different way according to zones and activities. In this way, in some cases the incidence is relativised – “you haven’t noticed the crisis here much [...] because the productive economy is the agriculture. The agriculture is in crisis since 40 years (GVE25)” – also because of a greater persistence of the familist structures: “because here the one that hasn’t got mother, or father, [...] here you notice the crisis less, because people help each other more (GVE14)”. In any case, in spite of this ambivalent image of resilience and vulnerability, the data and the employment agents show a more negative picture, pointing out that “a large part of the population is very poor, people who come constantly to the municipality, who come to the social services. (GVE06)”. Although the work environment is one that shows the effects of the crisis in the most evident manner, evidence about the consequences is collected in the different scenarios of the local economic system. Maybe the most obvious are the ones that leave a mark in the territory in the form of unfinished infrastructures or what has been denominated “frozen urbanisation”. At any rate, the effects are of systemic nature, since “the consumption is less, and because the consumption is less, there are fewer jobs (GVE17)”. The leisure is one of the areas where the informers recognise most the contraction of the consumption for “people go out much less... [...], the crisis affects a lot (GVE15)”. This has consequences in the establishments of the area, for numerous standstills are recognised. All this shows that over a generalised picture of the recession, the crisis has had diverse effects in La Vega de Sevilla, which are not homogeneous in and between the social groups. For example in the business environment, while some merchants determine that “it has gotten worse quite a bit. In the sales you have noticed it a lot (GVE19)”, others, like agricultural entrepreneurs, express that “we have more people to employ, less problems to find people, because formerly everyone was working in the construction and now everyone is here in the countryside waiting to be called (GVE23)”. Differences are also observed because “between 30 and 50 [...] years, the people seem to be in a little bit better position than the ones younger than 30 (GVE21)”. Precisely the labour market insecurity becomes recurring for a considerable part of the employed population: “building jobs that come up, some of three or four days, a week, then they stop, and until they pick another one... that’s the way it goes (GVE04)”. To a certain extent, one could say that there is a form of resilience based

40

E. Sanz Tolosana and M. T. González Fernández

on the eventuality and instability, which in turn increases the vulnerability of the most fragile groups. It is the case of the immigrant population, against which in the event of crisis the tensions and even xenophobic expressions erupt for the exposed reasons. “Before the crisis, [...] farming was for the people arriving, for the immigrants [...]. When this breaks down, the people come back, back again to the countryside (GVE29)”. The youth is also seen as a potentially vulnerable key group, although significant differences according to the position and qualification can be seen, and so the effect of the recession can occur to a greater or lesser extent. In the same way, the situation of unemployment and instability presents an important gender dimension since the women have been occupying the labour niches with the worst conditions and most related to the traditionally feminised activities in the care sector: “a bit like the return to traditional roles, [...] it’s like a return to their mother’s situation (GVE06)”. Determined discriminatory practises prove more problematic, which are frequent in the Andalusian agricultural environment: “it’s true that in that matter they are more chauvinist, you know, no way, they don’t let women work as peasant (GVE09)”. 3.4.1.2  C  risis in the Peripheral Rurality: Loss of Services and Uncertainty About the Sustainability Just like in the rest of the country, the economy in the valleys has suffered from the impact of the economic recession and the implemented austerity politics. One of the most reiterated effects in the discourses has been the fall in income due to a pronounced contraction of the demand in the principal economic sectors (tourism, construction), that is to say, less tourists and a decline in the rehabilitation and sales of property. Furthermore, they point out the cuts of the pensions (already low, as the majority have contributed as self-employed) and the salaries of the public employees. The references to the impact in the employment are scarce. It is not that it has not been affected, but that the lack of jobs as a characteristic is previous and posterior to the crisis. The economic inactivity and the consequent shortage of job opportunities are specific features of this territory. Here the most difficult thing for us are the jobs. I mean, when you come here to live, you don’t expect a lot, because of course you already know what a valley can offer and you already know it: there is the tourism sector, some wood is moving, farming, the school. That’s the offer you can find. Within that or you have an initiative and put it up or, if not, that’s all there is (PNE09).

There are confirmed cases of the family home appearing as a shelter for the young people that have lost their jobs in the city. But it is a temporary, minority option. Like one interviewed mayor said: “I think that this is even a question of weeks: there are weeks here that we have 14 young people and suddenly, the following week a temporary agency has called and we don’t have 14 anymore (PNE09)”. In spite of the evident impact on the economy, the majority perception in the common profiles as well as in the technical ones identifies the loss and deterioration

3  The Contribution of Mobilities to the Social Sustainability of Rural Areas in…

41

of the services, already decreased previously, as the principal impact of the crisis, and with it an intensification of the concern and uncertainty about the future and sustainability of the territory: the fear of depopulation rises steeply. In the discourses, the complaints in this regard are numerous, as well as is referring to power outages, the deterioration of road maintenance (snow, ice) or the increase of access costs of the services: because the option of living there, I’m not saying it is a risk-taking sport, but it is a strong bet, because the services are what they are. And I will not go further than mentioning the important ones, think of leisure, services, shopping. They are difficult. Then either there is a transformation and it changes, or I think that it is difficult in the long run (PNE05).

The centralisation and privatisation of the public services (road maintenance, fire department, street vending) and the disappearance of the private services (bank offices) have helped a gradual relocation of the forms of provision and supply. Outsourcing of recruitment for the provision of certain services encourages not hiring the residents, so the jobs are taken mainly by people that relocate on a daily basis to the valleys without residing in the communities. This means that the services are not of the settled population and the income goes to the urban areas. As the development agent confirms, “these villages, what are they going to be, back and forth? (PNE17)”. These processes are configuring a remote rurality “increasingly monitorised from the distance” (Iso and Oliva 2018). On the other hand, the crisis has encouraged an awakening about the gravity of the situation and the development of associations, strategies and methods aimed at denouncing the circumstances and demanding policies that meet the particularities of the territory. The paradigmatic mobilisation was the Municipal Legislative Initiative, which achieved a wide social response against the cuts in the attention of health emergencies in the rural areas and managed to collect the support of 63% of the Navarra municipalities.2 That is to say that on one hand, the crisis has deteriorated the economy and the services of the valleys and on the other hand, it has implied a wake-up call for the political action of the local societies. Neither have the effects of the crisis been homogeneous in all the social groups in the Navarran Pyrenees. Even though in this context the scarcity of services affects everyone, the accessibility produces and increases evident inequalities. The necessity to increase the private automobility to access the resources involves an economic cost that in many cases diminishes the already vulnerable family economies or leads to the non-accessibility due to lacking abilities or personal resources.

2  The crisis has reinforced the trend towards the suppression of the rural services. In this context, local people presented the Municipal legislative Initiative that tries to define by law a minimum set of health care in rural area. An initiative that criticizes the consideration the rural area as uniform. In this sense specific measures were demanded for the mountain areas.

42

E. Sanz Tolosana and M. T. González Fernández

3.4.2  C  onditions and Strategies of Mobility in the Context of the Crisis 3.4.2.1  La Vega de Sevilla In order to confront the effects of crisis through the deployment of mobility strategies, unlike the Pyrenean valleys, La Vega has the comparative advantage of counting on a short-line railway cross-cutting the area. In some cases and profiles, especially the ones less affected by the recession, it encourages developing diversified and selective mobility strategies even though this is not common: “I have many options: I come by car... hardly ever, [...] come by bike and go back by train, or the other way round. (GVE21)”. Thus, there is a very clear contrast regarding the potential resources between the villages with a good railway connection and the ones that depend on the bus. Furthermore, in the context of the crisis, the population is also obliged to evaluate the cost of each displacement in the work context as well as for other type of mobilities. It obliges to develop strategies to minimise the cost of displacements, be it as a necessity or to not diminish the scarce income that is received for the lowest paid jobs, as often is the case among the immigrant population: “If it is far, we pay 10 euros for the car that takes us, as we have to pay him the petrol (GVE01)”. In the end, the informants in the most disadvantaged positions often resort to the displacement on foot: “walking, around here you walk a lot (GVE26)”. The automobility is, even so, the referential transport of the region. It is intensively used by the informants in more affluent social positions, who thanks to their discretionary access to it, are immune to the restructuration of the own transport or the services as a result of the crisis – “each of us has a car and our cars... well, we don’t have to take any public transport (GVE23)”, “you go out when you want and come back when you want (GVE19)”. Hence the greater or lesser availability of transport options not only pairs up with social differentiation, but reproduces and strengthens it, in the contexts of class as well as of generation and gender: “those (female) graduates that have their jobs in a company, they take their cars and leave, great. The problem are the women in a worse economic situation, because the transport is not really appropriate (GVE06)”. The daily mobility of women associated with the work activities in the care sector is common in this situation. Also differences due to the age are appreciated in the type of transport as well as in the purpose of its use. So, “the students... the young people use the train or use the bus. Also the elderly, the bus to Seville, to go to Macarena (hospital) (GVE06)”. In this manner, the crisis affects more certain age groups as a result of the cuts in public services, due to their greater dependence from these, or their fewer economic resources. For their part, the young people consider that their specific needs of mobility are not attended since as frequent users of the public transport, they are the group with a greater demand of determined forms of leisure that transcend the common schedules. Some even highlight the greater difficulties and costs that the rural young people have to cope with when they undertake higher education, because

3  The Contribution of Mobilities to the Social Sustainability of Rural Areas in…

43

“either you get a good grant that covers the transport or a flat in Seville or you are more limited than someone that lives there (GVE27)”. The population of higher age is more sensitive to the accessibility of the services: “at the moment I carry on living here [...] When I will be older [...] I would go closer to Seville because) I would be older by then, would need everything within reach, right? (GVE10)”. The conditions and expectations of access to the daily mobility that would facilitate the specific practises and interests of the younger generations turn it this way into a key element in the face of the demographic and in consequence, the overall sustainability of these peri-urban rural municipalities. This derives from the latent threat of the activation of residential mobility in the face of the attraction of the metropolitan space: “No one wants to stay in the village (GVE09)”. Consequently, the youth represent a transversal generational category of vital nature, which is potentially vulnerable to the lack of expectations regarding the possibility of developing an autonomous life plan in the district. This is due to the effect of the economic, employment and other limitations, like the leisure-related ones, all aggravated because of the crisis (González and Montero 2018). Also, other groups with a disadvantaged social position present situations of superlative vulnerability that have not been resolved or that have even worsened in the context of recession.These can be recognised independently from the geographic location even in the inhabitants of the spaces closest to the metropolitan area, as their precarious economic condition means that the services are not within reach: “Once I had to buy my daughter the Epiphany presents and to bring the bike, I had to ask for a permission to put it inside. They said no [...] I waited for another one, waited for another one, another driver came and one of them let me do it, (laughter)... (GVE03)”. Also the elderly with scarce resources are confronted with similar or worse situations. They stick to get around daily “on foot, because I don’t have a car (GVE30)”. In the “frozen” urbanisations of the intermediate zone, the age and the economic needs are combined with the lack of transport services: “a very old lady who doesn’t have a car, the first one to meet her at the entrance of the urbanisation and goes to Brenes gives her a lift, she does her shopping and the first one to come back here, brings here back. It is very sad. Because maybe the lady waits 2 h in July before someone takes her with, that can’t be... (GVE13)”. As has been mentioned, another profile of especially vulnerable population is constituted by immigrants. Our informants of foreign origin (GVE11, GVE01) perceive an increase of rejection in the context of the crisis: “When workforce is needed, they want you, when not, it is: “go there, go to Romania“, because there is no work for everyone. Like a disposable cloth (GVE11)”. This way xenophobia, increase of precariousness and difficulties to access the essential services are combined: “Well, I had an appointment with the girl due to a stomach problem and I couldn’t go. I didn’t have a car... Not even a car, and so I lost the appointment (GVE01)”.

44

E. Sanz Tolosana and M. T. González Fernández

3.4.2.2  Mobilities and Vulnerability in the Navarran Pyrenees In this territory, the main factor of vulnerability is the lack of private automobility, as unlike in the previous case, there are no transport services to guarantee the necessary mobility. There is merely one bus line with only one daily transport service to the Navarran capital which does not respond to the local needs, and several private taxis for displacements between the valleys or for short routes. The travel time to Pamplona ranges between 1 h and 1 h and a half, provided that the meteorological conditions are good (there is no snow, ice, etc.). In this context, having a car becomes a vital necessity as demonstrated by the high rate of motorisation (527 passenger cars per every 1000 inhabitants). The recession has not only reduced the mobility practises but in this setting, also increased them as a response to the necessity of achieving decent living conditions. With the rise of the petrol prices, the families demonstrate having reduced superfluous trips and implemented collaborative strategies (to access health services, shopping, sharing a car, taking turns to take the children to the extracurricular activities, etc.). The strategies to make a better use of the mobility possibilities are ubiquitous in the social narratives, resulting in a solidary and intensified automobility (Sanz and Martínez Lorea 2018). In the hereafter presented mobility strategies deployed by different social groups the gender and the age are transversal factors. Firstly, the groups of immobilised people are distinguished, which in this territory includes two main profiles: elderly people and immigrant women. Secondly, there are the hypermobilised women and the youth. In all the interviews, the elderly people are identified as the most vulnerable group, and as the crucial one in terms of immobility, emphasising the difficulties and the impossibility to perform the daily management, which accentuate the dependency. “They can’t even go out to do the basic shopping (PNE16)”. As a social worker asserts, “in the evaluation of dependency, the key factor is how much a person depends on others for the daily activities. But in a small village where there is no communication, the grandad can move at home, but to move outside of his domicile, he needs help, and this is not considered in any of the items (PNE21)”. Inequality of accessing the mobility increases in the case of elderly women. The family prototype prevailing in the region until a few years ago encouraged the men to be the ones to drive, and so this generation of women has socialised in a situation of dependency in terms of mobility, aggravated by the ageing of the husband and his consequent inability to drive. There is a more pronounced dependency among the people residing in the smaller and more remote villages: You see women that had previously perfect hair, when the husband lived and drove, but now he may not live anymore or doesn’t drive, and so they don’t look after themselves, don’t go out, don’t socialise anymore. From what I can see because I work with people, when you depend on others, you can’t decide anymore, you always depend on what someone can do for you… (PNE22).

3  The Contribution of Mobilities to the Social Sustainability of Rural Areas in…

45

The family continues being the main care provider, complemented by the neighbourhood support. To resolve the situation, the deployment of family and neighbourhood strategies is increasingly diverse (Sanz and Martínez 2018). In this setting charaterised by the pronounced ageing and masculinisation, the care load falls on women. The mobility needs are materialising in a process of feminisation of the family responsibilities. Transporting the children to school activities, accompanying elderly people to health services or support in the daily management of basic necessities lead to an overload of tasks and an intensification of mobility: “the physical exhaustion of having to move, the economic costs and the wear of the car, it’s all intense (PNE22)”. The mountain valleys are not an attractive territory for the immigrant population. In spite of the fact that with the economic crisis, the number of people was reduced, the most stable and indispensable profile for the social sustainability is of the Latin American woman, who works in the domestic setting, under precarious circumstances. “And I couldn’t afford a car, although I have wanted one many times, to get out of here when I can but... (PNE20)”. The immobility”traps” them in the territory, restrains greatly bringing their children and hinders their sociability. In the opposite sense to the previous cases, we encounter as an exponent of the hypermobility the women, who are mothers of small children: “our children have a disadvantage which is the services, we have to move to take them to any activity, the car is a part of our life”; “it’s a hassle that we mothers have to organise (PNE09)”; “there are many days that I drive 80 kilometers only to pick up the kid (PNE08)”. The difficulty to reconcile work and childcare in an environment that demands continuous mobility generates practises of mutual cross-generational support between mothers (grandmothers) and daughters. “It’s really better for me here than in Pamplona, because my parents live here, and in Vidángoz, the mother of my husband, who also lives down here and even though she’s older, for a moment she can help (PNE08)”. Thus, just like in the previous case, the age is a decisive factor in generating of inequalities in the social structure (Government of Navarra 2017). Due to this vulnerability, the working conditions of the youth have deteriorated remarkably in the last years. The unemployment is the principal problem identified by the youth, while the existing employment is unappealing for its temporality and the requirement to work on public holidays and weekends in hospitality industry and farming. Relying on self-employment and entrepreneurship is diminished by the difficult access to financing. In this context, the entrenchment of young people depends largely on the mobility that permits accessing the external labour markets (commuting, pluriactivity, employment in the urban environment and in the village, etc.). These strategies are simultaneous with the persisting processes, such as the migration of the young people with university education, who cannot materialise their professional intentions in this territory. As one interviewee says, “when you come to live here, you don’t come with great expectations... you come more for the quality and what the village offers than what the labour market can offer you (PNE09)”. Housing is an additional difficulty. The real estate market is characterised by lack of offer, problems for rehabilitation and shortage due to the existing demand of

46

E. Sanz Tolosana and M. T. González Fernández

second residences. The difficulty of access among the youth is pronounced. This way, the residence in the native town presents significant obstacles for the emancipation, which results in lengthening of cohabitation in the family homes. Among the youth, elevated dependency on the family economy, belated process of autonomy, delayed maternity and increasingly precarious and temporary life expectations are common. The announced return of the young people as an effect of the crisis has not been produced. Leisure and socialisation of the youth also require mobility. That is why the local institutions hire a night bus (nicknamed “come and go”) to relocate the youth to the festivals in the villages. The access to employment, studies and leisure practises are conditional to the mobility, which is why having a car is their first aspiration.

3.5  Conclusions In both territorial scenarios the results show a great diversity of discourses and narratives regarding the deployed strategies, which reveal different degrees of crisis impact and remarkable inequalities in the access to mobility as a resource to achieve greater well-being in the most “virtuous” cases, or for mere survival at the opposite extreme. This is linked to the (in-)capacity to develop a life-plan, family circumstances, origin, availability of resources such as a car, etc. Hence, they show the socially unequal effects of the crisis that either reinforce previous situations of deprivation and precariousness or break emerging dynamics that seemed to lead to abandoning those. In any case, this leads to relatively widespread situations of vulnerability in both regions  – independently from the pronounced structural differences recognised between the both – that the strategic resource of mobility does not manage to palliate. Facing our initial question, we observe that the territorial structures produce different nuances in the discourses and developed mobility strategies. The territorial configuration of the Navarran Pyrenees constitutes a very aged territory, even though highly selective in terms of the sociological profiles (with few young people, women and immigrants) and life projects that have a possibility to develop and keep up. It is a resilient rurality, whose basic objective of governance is to relocate the services. In the peri-urban rurality of Seville, we find a territory fragmented by the metropolitan uses (between the most remote villages and the ones that embrace dynamics of residential and entrepreneurial dispersion) that disgorge many degrees of accessibility to the opportunities (Oliva 2018). To the exploration of the connection between territories and social landscapes with the life projects is added the observation of the factors such as the social position and the availability of resources, fundamentally economic ones. They shield against the effects of the crisis in the peri-urban rurality as well as in the remote Pyrenean valleys through profuse and flexible employment of the resource of the automobility. Meanwhile, on the opposite site we recognise profiles with significant difficulties to access the mobility  – even in the areas with better

3  The Contribution of Mobilities to the Social Sustainability of Rural Areas in…

47

communications – and marked by the vulnerability. It is defined in terms of the age (young and elderly), the gender (through the assignment of activities and productive and reproductive spaces associated with the care) as well as the origin, which allows us to recognise processes of ethnic fragmentation in both regions (Pedreño 2005). These elements (age, gender, origin and, in a cross-cutting manner to all the social formation, class) draw different possibilities of access to the mobility and hence, more pronounced settings of impact of the crisis for determined groups of both regions. It points to a consideration of the diverse, complex and integral nature of circumstances and conditions that mark the life of rural residents and, ultimately, to the threats for the continuity of these forms of dwelling in a country where the depopulation has become a collective concern. All this obliges to take into account the notion of social sustainability, defined “as the existence of a diverse and equitable human framework, sufficiently active and articulate to generate social and economic dynamics that are able to maintain the satisfaction of the material and subjective necessities of all the groups that compose the population of a territory” (Camarero et al. 2009: 23), in terms of a condition for the continuity of the rurality.

References Aguilar E (2014) Los nuevos escenarios rurales: de la agricultura a la multifuncionalidad. Endoxa: Series Filosóficas N° 33:73–98 Bodoque Y (2017) Caravana de mujeres en España. Revista de Dialectología y tradiciones populares 72, (enero-junio):67–84 Camarero L y González MT (2005) Los procesos recientes de transformación de las áreas rurales españolas: una lectura desde la reestructuración ampliada. In: Sociología. Revista da Facultade de Letras, vol 15. Universidade de Porto, pp 95–123 Camarero L y Sampedro MR (2008) ¿Por qué se van las mujeres? El “continuum” de movilidad como hipótesis explicativa de la masculinización rural. Reis: Revista española de investigaciones sociológicas N° 124:73–106 Camarero L, Cruz F, González MT, del Pino JA, Oliva J, Sampedro MR (2009) La población rural de España: de los desequilibrios a la sostenibilidad social. Fundación La Caixa, Barcelona Camarero L, Cruz F, Oliva J (2016) Rural sustainability, inter-generational support and mobility. Eur Urban Reg Stud 23(4):734–749 Cascajo R, Díaz Olvera L, Monzón A, Plat D, Ray JB (2018) Impacts of the economic crisis on household transport expenditure and public transport policy: evidence from the Spanish case. Transp Policy 65:40–50 Cass N, Shove E, Urry J (2005) Social exclusion, mobility and access. Sociol Rev 53(3):539–555 Currie G (2009) Australian urban transport and social disadvantage. Australian Economic Review 42:201–208 Del Pino J, Camarero L (2017) Despoblamiento rural. Imaginarios y realidades Soberanía Alimentaria 27:6–10 Delgado JM, Martínez LC (2017) Evolución, situación actual y perspectivas de la población en los pequeños municipios españoles. Documentación Social 185:37–66 European Commission (2008a) The EU rural development policy: facing the challenges. European Communities, Brussels European Commission (2008b) Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas. Final study report, European Commission

48

E. Sanz Tolosana and M. T. González Fernández

European Commission (2011) Rural areas and the Europe 2020 Strategy Employment. EU Agricultural Economic Briefs, 5, November Feria Toribio JM (2010) La delimitación y organización espacial de las áreas metropolitanas españolas: una perspectiva desde la movilidad residencia-trabajo. Ciudad y territorio: Estudios territoriales N° 164:189–210 Gálvez L, Matus M (2012) Género y ruralidad en Andalucía: Un diagnóstico regional. Revista de estudios regionales N°. 94:195–220 González MT (2002) Sociología y Ruralidades. La construcción social del desarrollo rural en el Valle de Liébana. MAPA, Madrid González MT, Camarero LA (1999) Reflexiones sobre el desarrollo rural: las tramoyas de la Postmodernidad. Política y Sociedad n° 31:55–68 González MT, Montero I (2018) Proyectos vitales y residenciales en la Gran Vega de Sevilla. In: Oliva J (ed) Movilidades, trayectorias vitales y sostenibilidad rural. UPNA, Pamplona, pp 117–136 González MT, Navarro L, Oliva J (2018) Juventud y desarrollo rural: contexto y elementos para una comparación internacional. In: Contreras E, Contreras F (coord) Empleo, capacitación y jóvenes rurales de México. UNAM, Mexico, pp 29–66 Government of Navarra (2017) Estudio socioeconómico y sobre la situación de la juventud en la zona del Pirineo de Navarra. Available on: https://www.deporteyjuventudnavarra.es/es/ estudio-socioeconomico-de-la-juventud-en-la-zona-del-pirineo-navarro Guzmán GI, González M, Sevilla E (2000) Introducción a la agroecología como desarrollo rural sostenible. Mundi-Prensa, Madrid Hedberg C, do Carmo RM (2012) Translocal ruralism: mobility and connectivity in European rural spaces. In: Hedberg C, do Carmo R (eds) Translocal ruralism. GeoJournal library, vol 103. Springer, Dordrecht IECA (2017) Explotación del Padrón municipal de habitantes del INE IEN (2017) Estadística del Padrón Continuo a 1 de enero de 2017. Available in: http://www. navarra.es/ Karanikolos M, Pia Heino P, Mckee M, Stuckler D, Legido-Quigley H (2016) Effects of the global financial crisis on health in high-income OECD countries: a narrative review. Int J Health Serv 46(2):208–240 Lash S, Urry J (1994) Economies of signs and space. Sage, London Milbourne P, Kitchen L (2014) Rural mobilities: connecting movement and fixity in rural places. J Rural Stud 34:326–336 Oliva J (coord) (2018) Movilidades, trayectorias vitales y sostenibilidad rural. Pamplona: UPNA, 73–115 Oliva J, Camarero L (2018) Movilidades, hibridaciones rurales y paisajes sociales. In: Oliva J (ed) Movilidades, trayectorias vitales y sostenibilidad rural. UPNA, Pamplona, pp 21–33 Pedreño A (2005) Sociedades Etnofragmentadas. In: Hernández M, Pedreño A (coord) La condición inmigrante: exploraciones e investigaciones desde la Región de Murcia. Ed. Univ. de Murcia, Murcia, pp 75–106 Pérez M, Guerra C, Tapia C (2018) La ruralidad periurbana en la Gran Vega de Sevilla. In: Oliva J (coord.) (2018). Movilidades, trayectorias vitales y sostenibilidad rural. Pamplona: UPNA Pucher J, Renne JL (2005) Rural mobility and mode choice: evidence from the 2001 National Household Travel Survey. Transportation 32(2):165–186 Sampedro R, Camarero L (2016) Inmigrantes, estrategias familiares y arraigo: las lecciones de la crisis en las áreas rurales. Migraciones N° 40:3–31 Sanz E (2009) Identidad, montaña y desarrollo: los valles de Roncal, Salazar y Aezkoa. Basque Government, Vitoria/Gazteiz (Spain) Sanz E, Martínez-Lorea I (2018) Estrategias sociales y movilidad en la Montaña navarra. In: Oliva J (ed) Movilidades, trayectorias vitales y sostenibilidad rural. UPNA, Pamplona Smith N, Hirsch D, Davies A (2012) Accessibility and capability: the mínimum transport needs and costs of rural households. J Transp Geogr 21:93–101

3  The Contribution of Mobilities to the Social Sustainability of Rural Areas in…

49

Sorokin P, Zimmerman CE (1929) Principles of rural  – urban sociology. Henry Holt and Co, New York Urry J (2004) The ‘system’ of automobility. Theory Cult Soc 21(4–5):25–39 Elvira Sanz Tolosana  is Associate Professor of Sociology at the Public University of Navarra, Spain. Her main research areas are Rural Sociology and Sociology of Health. Her research interests are Rural Development, Rural Sustainability, Mobilities and Social Diversity. Furthermore, her research has been directed towards Health in All Policies, Health Impact Assessment, Health Policies and Rural Health. Currently, she is involved in different research projects at national level regarding the counterurbanisation, mobilities, and rural sustainability. Manuel Tomás González Fernández  is Associate Professor at the Pablo de Olavide University in Seville, Spain. He is member of the DEMOSPAIN research group and is focused on Rural Sociology and Development, Territorial Identities and specialized in Qualitative Research. He has conducted different research projects as well as published different articles and books about these topics.

Chapter 4

New Rural Residents, Territories for Vital Projects and the Context of the Crisis in Spain Jesús Oliva and María Jesús Rivera

4.1  Introduction Migration to rural areas has become one of the most significant rural changes in post-industrial societies. It encompasses a variety of vital strategies that since the second half of the last century have been progressively identified by rural studies. Furthermore, the study of migration to the rural has become a major line of research within the international agenda of rural sociology, particularly in the Global North. As empirical evidence has demonstrated, the sociological profiles of those involved in this migration trend, as well as the destinations and motivations of such a migration, are increasingly diversified. Accordingly, the theoretical and methodological approaches focused on the study of counterurbanisation have also broadened the scope of the research; this is in order to be able to deal with particular types of migrations to rural areas, such as transnational retirement migration, new age travellers, lateral migration, amenity migration, national and international labour migration, and so on. However, most of this literature refers to a period of economic expansion. In fact, studies relating migration to rural areas during economic crisis are still comparatively scarce, and they seem to indicate the relevance of the context in understanding the different processes and the need for more empirical work. For example, perspectives focused on family strategies have shown how counterurbanisation decreases in times of recession among qualified groups in Denmark (Hansen and J. Oliva (*) i-Communitas. Institute for Advanced Social Research, Public University of Navarre, Pamplona, Spain e-mail: [email protected] M. J. Rivera Department of Sociology and Social Work, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 F. N. Döner et al. (eds.), Crisis and Post-Crisis in Rural Territories, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50581-3_4

51

52

J. Oliva and M. J. Rivera

Aner 2017). This finding contrasts with the case for Greece, where the crisis has led to counterurbanisation strategies for other sociological profiles (Gkartzios 2013; Kasimis and Papadopoulos 2013; Gkartzios and Scott 2017). In this light, it is necessary to more closely examine these migrations as being differentiated social and cultural patterns (Gkartzios 2013), and from the point of view of family strategies (Mulder 2007; Scott and Murphy 2014; Haartsen and Stockdale 2017). For example, in Southern Europe and the Mediterranean, it is frequently observed that those who return to rural areas seeking support of local and family networks do so in order to countenance times of recession. In the case of Spain, the phenomenon of the migration to rural areas has also been extensively analysed from different perspectives (Camarero 1993; Hoggart and Mendoza 1999; Rivera 2007b, 2013; Camarero 2009; Suarez-Navaz 2007; Morén-Alegret 2008; Oliva 2010; Bayona-i-Carrasco and Gil-Alonso 2013; Collantes et al. 2014; Sampedro and Camarero 2018). Here too, little research has been carried out with regard to exploring this phenomenon within a prolonged period of economic crisis like the current one. The objective of such research is to better understand the impact of the last financial and economic crisis on people’s lives, on issues of social justice, on livelihoods, and on the economic backwardness of the rural areas. This chapter explores how the recession initiated two decades ago has affected these processes of migration to rural areas in Spain, by focusing on three different aspects; i.e., the arrival of newcomers, the local economic dynamism and the possibilities and expectations after the recession. The reflection offered is based on the analysis of a series of semi-structured interviews conducted with new rural residents in five different Spanish regions. These interviews were part of two research projects that looked at the residential sociobiographies of the interviewees, the adjustments and decisions made throughout the family life cycle, labour and mobility strategies, and how their changing imaginary about the rural is connected to the migrations to the rural (see methodological section below).1 The case studies are illustrative of remote, peri-urban and hyperproductive rural regions. The information gathered allows us to explore the impact that the financial recession has had on the viability of the projects of the new rural residents. The chapter is structured as follows. In Sect. 4.2, we develop a theoretical approach. On the one hand, we consider the state of migration to rural areas and the 1  The Project conducted by María Jesús Rivera under the title Comparative study of the impact of new settlers on different scenarios of rurality: Actors, practices and discourses (CSO2011-27981), analyses several of these strategies involved in the migration to an essentially postproductive remote rurality (Sierra de Francia in Salamanca on the Spanish-Portuguese border), a peri-urban interstitial rurality (the Pamplona Basin in Navarre) and a hyperproductive rurality (the strawberry region of Huelva). The research conducted by Jesús Oliva under the title of Mobility, social diversity and sustainability. The challenges of the European agenda for rural development (CSO2012-37540) gathered sociological profiles of migrants to rural areas in Navarrese Pyrenean mountain (valleys of Aezkoa, Roncal and Salazar, on the French-Spanish border), the peri-urban rural region of Gran Vega in Seville and the Aveiro region in Portugal (only the first two cases are considered here).

4  New Rural Residents, Territories for Vital Projects and the Context of the Crisis…

53

relevance of this debate in understanding contemporary rural restructuring. On the other hand, we show the possibilities offered by the life-project approaches, in order to understand migrations to rural areas, and we revisit these processes in the light of the context of the recession. In Sect. 4.3, we expound the methodological aspects of the projects. Then, in Sect. 4.4, the interviews are analysed in accordance with the aforementioned parameters of analysis. Next, the discussion is expounded in Sect. 4.5. Finally, in Sect. 4.6, the chapter ends by summarizing the findings and their implications for the research of the migration to rural in a postglobal society.

4.2  F  rom Counterurbanisation to Postglobal Mobilities: The Changing Migration to Rural Areas 4.2.1  T  he Increasing Diversification of the Study of Migration to Rural Areas Several decades of research on migration to rural areas have given rise to a suggestive debate and an accumulation of knowledge about its local impact, motivations and the social groups involved. The first studies sought to highlight an unexpected and contradictory phenomenon after the long rural exodus that involved urbanisation and industrial modernization. Counterurbanisation and the ‘rural turnaround’ were characterised then as an analytical system that aimed to visualize these emerging processes within national contexts (Berry 1976; Clout 1972; Champion 1989; Kayser 1990; Camarero 1993; Castle 1995; Cloke et al. 1995; Urry 1995; Boyle and Halfacree 1998). These studies described the generalisation of this residential trend and allowed it to be considered within the institutional policies (Milbourne 2007). Other approaches, through case studies, delved into the rural meanings implicit in these strategies (Smith and Phillips 2001; Phillips 2002; Halfacree 1994, 2012). In addition, many other sociological profiles and motivations have proliferated since then, such as return migration, back-to-the-land migrants, amenity migration, international labour migration, pre-retired migration and so forth. Thus, this phenomenon subsequently appears to be much more complex, changeable and diverse than initially expected (Buller and Hoggart 1994; Mitchell 2004, 2008; Milbourne 2007; Rivera 2007a, b; Halfacree 2012; Halfacree and Rivera 2013; Stockdale and Catney 2014; Moss and Glorioso 2014; Stockdale 2016; Elshof et al. 2017; Simard 2017). The understanding and theorization of this plurality of migrations to rural areas inevitably requires enlarging the focus of attention to address the phenomenon in a comprehensive manner, in order to include new experiences of migration to the rural (Halfacree 2001, 2012). Hence, many of the first counterurbanisation studies analysed this phenomenon mostly within the industrialised countries (Champion 1998; Milbourne 2007; Halfacree 2008; Champion and Graeme 2014), whereas new explanatory frameworks, such as those provided by the mobility paradigm (Sheller and Urry 2006), have helped in understanding the emergence of some

54

J. Oliva and M. J. Rivera

globalised and translocal connections which underlie the processes of migration to the rural areas involving migration between different countries (King et al. 2000; O’Reilly 2000, 2007; Casado et al. 2004; Haug et al. 2007; Gustafson 2008; Bell and Osti 2010; Oliva 2010; Hedberg and Carmo 2012; Camarero et al. 2012; Scott et al. 2017). The paradoxes revealed by empirical findings have stimulated the debate on analytical and methodological assumptions when studying migration to rural areas. For example, Gkartzios and Scott (2010, 2017) pointed out how the attention paid to counterurbanisation had made other migrations invisible, such as those between the rural areas themselves (lateral migration). For instance, transnational migrations have increasingly diversified in terms of groups and places. As Woods concludes (2016), in addition to the old retirement strategies of certain global elites in the form of “international counterurbanisation”, labour migrations that involve different kinds of workers have been added. For example, immigrants from Latin America, the Maghreb, and Eastern Europe move to the rural regions of the countries in the South of Europe to their markets for harvesting, hospitality and personal care work (Camarero et  al. 2012; Kasimis 2008; Kasimis et  al. 2003, 2010; Papadopoulos 2012). Traditional concepts of migration fail to capture the diversity and dynamics of the new international migrations to the rural world. As Wood also points to, “patterns and processes of contemporary migration are more fluid and dynamic than often imagined, and are situated within a matrix of stretched translocal social relations.” (2016: 572). For example, global amenity migrations (Moss and Glorioso 2014) and pre-retired migrations might be converted by certain groups into a definitive retirement destination (Philip and MacLeod 2018). Consequently, in many cases, different types of counterurbanisation, migrants, and mobilities to the rural coexist in the same destination place and may give rise to conflicting views of local realities (Kraack and Kenway 2002; Rivera and Mormont 2007).

4.2.2  T  he Relevance of Life Course and Family Cycle to Understand Migration to Rural Areas Within the increasing broadening of the studies that cover a greater number of experiences of migration to the rural, some papers have placed emphasis on the relevance of the life paths and family cycle to understand more fully how the different drivers of migration can at a given moment be determinant enough to lead to such a migration (Halfacree 2001; Gustafson 2008; Milbourne 2007; Rivera 2007a, b, 2013; Geist and McManus 2008; Bailey 2011; Stockdale et al. 2013; Stockdale and Catney 2014; Stockdale 2014, 2016; Gkartzios et al. 2017), and that family networks play an important role in the decision to migrate; furthermore, other issues, such as the characteristics of housing can be determining factors (Scott et  al. 2017). As Stockdale and Catney (2014) suggest, age and life course “may display

4  New Rural Residents, Territories for Vital Projects and the Context of the Crisis…

55

geographical variations influenced by local cultures and contexts and the state of the national and local employment and housing markets.” (2014: 85). Another essential issue that acts as an introduction to the analysis developed by Bailey (2011) is the synchronization of multiple lives and the timing in the motivations to migrate to the rural. Coordination is required for motivations, family needs and changing cycles in different homes (Halfacree and Boyle 1993; Rivera 2007b, 2013) and for the extended family. In a similar vein, Camarero and Oliva (2016a, b) analyse how the context of family relationships affects residential elections and the changing nature of intergenerational relationships, and how they may affect the provision of care and income security. The arrangements for living with any member of the extended family have become a way of resilience under the conditions of neoliberalism. In these strategies, different life-courses and family nuclei are synchronized into migrations. Stockdale et  al. (2013) suggest attending not only to the biographical moment of the decision, but also to the vital trajectories. In order to appreciate these intrinsic links, we need to understand the changes in rural territories. Along these lines Bailey (2011) underlines the importance of connecting the town with vital projects and exploring the place as an active element. These works suggest that in the decisions to emigrate to rural areas the imaginary of the rural is elaborated through political and ideological constructions of the meanings of the place (Halfacree 1994). The analysis of life-courses and socio-­ biographies have shown how migrations mean different things to different groups and their different biographical moments; for example, access to affordable housing, the family as a provider of assistance, parenting in the village and exclusive residential complexes (Rivera 2007b). As Halfacree (2012) summarizes in his critique of the concept of migration as permanent, “because any migration is likely to be ‘temporary’ in terms of the duration of a person’s life, the very idea of ‘permanent’ migration increasingly seems a product of an implicit assumption of normative sedentarist settlement.” (2012: 213).

4.3  Notes on Research Methods and Study Areas Probably, one of the main features of Spanish rural areas is its intrinsic heterogeneity. The vast rural Spanish territory was at the beginning of the century an amalgam of rural areas with very differentiated characteristics representing differing livelihoods, productive activities, economic dynamism, landscape, and so forth. This heterogeneity also implies the coexistence of the rural territories that are losing population with those rural territories experiencing an increase in population. On the one hand, many Spanish municipalities are at risk of depopulation due to ageing, youth exodus and/or poor accessibility to resources and opportunities (Consejo Económico y Social de España 2018; Ministerio de Política Territorial y Función Pública 2019). This risk represents an aggravated phenomenon in remote and mountainous areas, inland regions and even some provincial capitals after the crisis. The prolonged economic recession started in 2008, and has led to the cuts in

56

J. Oliva and M. J. Rivera

infrastructure and investments, expenditure control and containment imposed by the central administrations upon the regional ones and then on the municipalities; this has brought about an abandonment of public and private services in many regions. On the other hand, some rural areas are still the milieu for a significant population and are a clear destination for migration. According to the 2011 census data, more than 9.7 million people lived in municipalities with less than 10,000 inhabitants, 21% of this population resided in another place 10 years prior to the census being conducted. Of this group, 5.6% lived abroad and 10.4% in Spanish municipalities with more than 20,000 inhabitants. The nature of this migration has become much more complex and oriented towards certain regions and localities, due to their location, labour markets and/or amenities. At the same time, some regions receive very different profiles of new settlers, such as transnational retirement migrants, international labour migrants, returnees, neo-rurals, urban middle classes, etc. This gives rise to what could be termed as new rural ‘melting-pots’ (Oliva 2010). As already advanced, this chapter is based on the findings of two research projects funded by the Spanish National Research Plan and conducted by the authors in different Spanish rural regions between 2012 and 2016, when the recession was hitting the country hard (see footnote 1). Amongst other questions, both projects looked at different aspects of the transformation of rural territories, new residential strategies and the role played by new residents in the everyday life of the rural community. The sum of both projects covered five areas of study, and their main characteristics may be summarised as follows: (a) The region of the Aezkoa, Salazar and Roncal valleys, in Pyrenean mountains, is an area located near the Spanish-French border. It consists of 25 small, dispersed municipalities that cover 925 km2 and in which 3983 people live. Density does not exceed 6 inhabitants per km2, and the population dropped 30% from 2001 to 2017. (b) The region of Batuecas-Sierra de Francia in Salamanca covers a mountainous area of 464,03 km2 close to the border with Portugal. It comprises 15 municipalities with a total of 4507 inhabitants in 2019. They are small villages with an aged and continuously decreasing population. The agricultural sector is losing relevance as the main economic activity in favour of post-productive services such as rural tourism, traditional products, and so forth. (c) The case of Gran Vega region in Seville includes urban sprawl and commuting areas, Mediterranean agrotowns and isolated villages classified as highly vulnerable rural areas by the regional administration. The region consists of 13 municipalities and covers 1354 km2. More than 159,000 inhabitants live in this area close to the urban agglomeration of 1.5 million. (d) The metropolitan area of Pamplona includes a total of 12 municipalities spread over an area of 354,27 km2. These municipalities, in turn, comprise a plurality of 104 small entities with a total population in 2019 of 87,481 inhabitants. The area includes municipalities with a consistent population growth and municipalities with decreasing population.

4  New Rural Residents, Territories for Vital Projects and the Context of the Crisis…

Exurban migration Retired migration Return migration Lateral migration Foreign labour migration

57

Exurban professional middle-classes Young population with limited economic resources Migration occurred after retirement Population with previous links to the locality Population moving from other rural areas in Spain Labour migrants

Fig. 4.1  Main types of migration within new rural residents

(e) The hyperproductive strawberry region of Huelva, in Andalusia, constitutes 6 municipalities covering an extension of 1554,85 km2 and reported a population of 141.479 inhabitants in 2019. The region has a strong and internationally integrated agro-industry that attracts many foreign workers from different countries within Europe (i.e. Bulgaria and Romania), Africa and Latin America. Although they are mostly seasonal workers, in many cases, labour migrants become residents on a permanent basis after obtaining better jobs in the agro-­ industry or in a different sector. The number of interviews conducted by the two projects came to 72 and considered key informants as well as different sociological profiles of migrants to rural areas. The analysis of this chapter is based on a selected corpus of 24 interviews based on the obvious appearance of recession-related elements within the narratives (see Annex). To clarify the discussion, we have adopted the following typology. We will consider all the population that moved to the rural area of the case studies as new rural residents. Within these new rural residents, we have included different types of migration to rural areas (see Fig.  4.1); certainly, this typology does not include all the possible types of migration to rural areas that you might expect. It includes the main types we found in our pieces of research in relation to the impact of the recession.2

4.4  T  he Crisis as the Trigger for a New Relationship Between Rural Territories and New Residents The global financial crisis and its transformation into a long lasting Great Depression has been especially hard in the Southern and Mediterranean countries that had to deal with the spending control regulations and budget cuts. As a consequence, the

2  We are aware that in some occasions, some of these labels may overlap each other. That is, some people may, at the same time, reflect more than one label. For instance, retired migration could at the same time be a return migration experience or an exurban one. In order to clarify the analysis of the interviews, we have considered the type of migration that seemed to explain a bigger part of migrant’s experience.

58

J. Oliva and M. J. Rivera

vulnerability of many rural regions increased (European Commission 2011; OECD 2016; Congress of Local and Regional Authorities 2017; Kasimis et  al. 2010; Gkartzios 2013; Sánchez-Zamora et al. 2014; Sampedro and Camarero 2018; Silva and Cardoso 2017; Holl 2018; Camarero and Oliva 2019). Furthermore, certain rural areas in Spain might also deal with a significative increase in poverty. Against this background, some people who were looking for a better future in the cities became unemployed and were pushed back into the rural economies and to family support. Additionally, many other vital ventures not linked to the crisis saw their rural projects overturned. For example, one of the latest reports by the European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN-ES 2019), which in Spain tracks the AROPE indicator used by the European Union, highlights that a greater proportion of this poorer population lives in rural and semi-urban areas. In relation to the impact of the crisis upon the relationship between rural territories and new residents, the narratives expressed in the interviews allow us to underline two interrelated effects; i.e., the impact on new residents’ experiences and expectations, and the relevance of place, life course and the family cycle in understanding new residents’ decisions.

4.4.1  T  he Impact of the Crisis on New Residents’ Experiences and Expectations The recession at the beginning of the century has had a different impact on rural territories and new residents’ everyday life. Thus, the interviewees’ narratives showed a series of aspects in which new residents are affected by the recession in relation to their personal/family life-project, their personal circumstances and the economic strength of the given territory. However, beyond this diversity of impacts, the interviews seemed to suggest, at least, three recurrent spheres of impact; i.e., the arrival of new residents, the local economic dynamics, and the possibilities and expectations after the recession. Even though these spheres are closely intertwined, we explore them separately here in order to gain further clarity. Firstly, and for a better understanding of the role played by the crisis in the arrival of new residents to rural areas, it is important to note the traditional function of the family as the main support in facing difficult circumstances when there is little state aid; also the close relationships kept between those who previously left the village and those relatives who remained are important. These are the reasons why many people trapped by the recession in the cities considered the family village as a resource that might help them to overcome the period of crisis. In these cases, rural territories act as a buffer for the impact of the experience of the recession. As many interviewees related, the idea of moving to the rural locality was a decision forced on them by the complicated situation they were experiencing in city. Therefore, when unemployment hit the family, the rural territory became an opportunity or the only alternative for their “no future” urban lives. “Well, the typical youths that have

4  New Rural Residents, Territories for Vital Projects and the Context of the Crisis…

59

gone to [the regional capital city], that live in a rented apartment, or in a flat that they have bought and cannot pay for and return to the village because in the village you have a family house (…) And there are also those who might work in factories who return to the village because the factory dispensed with them, the conditions are bad and they look for whatever there is in the village.” (PNE06, female, aged 38, returned). In these cases, returnees might have different options. Sometimes they can work in small businesses previously run by other family members, such as small shops or local bars, and sometimes they will find the economic refuge in the local industry thanks to their family contacts. As a young interviewee expressed, “But now with the recession many our age have returned to the ham industry. Their parents have found them a job [in the local ham industry] when they are left without work in Madrid and they are returning. Grumpy because they don’t want to be in the village, but they return.” (SAE14 (a), female, aged 43, exurban, husband return migrant). The impact of the recession did not just cause the return of the urban population with previous links with the locality, but it also caused an increase in lateral migration from rural localities with a weaker productive fabric to rural localities with a stronger economic activity in the farming sector, agroindustry, services (tourism) and small industries. One of the interviewees in a village whose economy is based on the agro-industry relates how the migration patterns between rural areas changed with time and the economic perspectives. “Now a lot of people are coming from [different cities and regional capitals] (…). They stopped coming, the people from here say that it’s that they saw the boom, when the construction boom came, and they decided to leave, go. Then the village had to fall back on the foreigners and that’s why there are so many foreigners. So, now the boom has gone the recession comes again. The people are coming again.” (HUE13, female, aged 39, exurban). The crisis gave rise to visible social tension in some villages, and this was reflected in the controversy regarding the growing precarity and deregulation of labour practices and wages in these activities, this in turn was because of the occupation by foreign workers. The vision of foreign people as hire and fire workers was explained by a 26-year-old Eastern European interviewee who had been residing with his wife and three children in the region for more than 7 years, “What I don’t understand is how they can say we are to blame for recession because we also have paid taxes. When there is a lack of workers, they want us, when there isn’t go away to Romania because there isn’t enough work for everyone. It is like rag that you use and throw away.” (GV11, male, aged 26, labour migrant). A second major sphere of impact of the crisis has been on the local economic dynamism. Coherently, the crisis resulted in the reconfiguration of economic activities also in rural areas. Amongst the impacts of the recession upon the villages studied we reported the decrease in tourism, and the consequent difficulties of keeping rural tourist hospitality services afloat. This is particularly important in the case of rural areas with little economic activity, as occurred in some of the remote mountainous areas. Thus, some of small hospitality businesses opened by new residents were at risk. This was the case of one interviewee who was the owner of a rural hotel, “But in four years here it has gone down, gone down, gone down. We have

60

J. Oliva and M. J. Rivera

noticed the recession. It came here late but it has been noticed.” (SAE09, male, aged 44, exurban). This effect of the recession was specially noted in areas in which the seasonal nature of rural labour markets entails more fragile and limited opportunities. “This year there are going to be cuts in the [skiing] season and cuts in the workers, and from then on you notice it and before there were always people for work. However, now a waiter can’t find work in the valley, it’s more difficult. Then the recession has arrived.” (PNE06, female, aged 38, returned). Furthermore, where possible, public policy and private investment drove the restoration of local heritage (buildings) that were sometimes used as places for hospitality services, restaurants, etc. In some cases, the recession also affected these plans, leaving some of the rural areas without one of their possible assets. For instance, as one interviewee explained, although the historic building of the locality was renovated, the recession left the area without further activity. “And the nicest bit is that opposite is the restored Palace of [the village] and … and …But of course the recession arrived and after the restoration work, they then closed it, that is to say there is no activity there.” (NAE06, male, aged 38, exurban). In the case of villages with intensive agricultural activities and which are well connected to metropolitan areas, unskilled workers from other countries arrived with dual objectives. The first being to find a job in the activities relegated by the local population, such as agricultural labourers, whilst residing in a place with easy access to a lower cost of living in the rural and, at the same time, access to metropolitan jobs (services, cleaning, factories, care, etc.). Some of these groups of foreign workers, who do not have the help of family networks and whose vital project was a definitive commitment to prosper, often felt trapped and unable to return. As one interviewee highlighted, “Loads have left. What happens is that it takes a lot to leave everything and go back to live in Romania again. (…) for example, my girlfriend is twenty-seven and has been here since she was fourteen. That is thirteen years, it’s almost half a lifetime.” (GV11, male, aged 26, farm labourer). Even in the context of recession, the city it is not an alternative for them, and rural locations work as a refuge for them, as a place where they struggle but within an acceptable precariousness. Finally, according to the interviewees, the third dimension clearly hit by the crisis is the range of possibilities and expectations that new residents may have of rural life. In this sense, the new, and often unexpected, scenario that has emerged from the impact of the recession upon rural areas has for some of the new rural residents become a very different everyday life scenario from the one they expected and desired. In some cases, they may well consider the possibility of taking a backward step in their residential strategy. However, the crisis will not always make this return possible. Many of these vital projects have been significantly eroded due to the prolonged economic recession, and they perceive all these years as downtime. As a 25 year old interviewee, from Eastern Europe and resident in the area with her husband and two children explained, “Now it is very difficult to bring children here. You are better off in Romania than here. Because you have your parents…. and I don’t know what,

4  New Rural Residents, Territories for Vital Projects and the Context of the Crisis…

61

your social security the thing if they give it but here at this time you can’t do anything.” (GV01, female, aged 25, labour migrant). Nevertheless, the impact of the recession has also been evident in some of the profiles involved in the urban middle class residential sprawl to the exclusive peri-­ urban housing estates. This is a process supported by easy access to credit and the construction boom. Since the financial and construction crash developments in several areas have been frozen, and sometimes they present unsustainable situations. For example, one such resident interviewed where she lives with her husband and son described that, “there are many people where things have gone very badly and they are experiencing real needs. There have been others who have left their houses and handed them over to the bank.” (GV10, female, aged 44, exurban migration). The recession also borne out by a fall in housing prices, and many people who had bought a new home in a rural area lost a significant part of their capital. Furthermore, the trade in houses decreased rapidly and profoundly. Thus, those willing to go back to the city had to remain in the rural area as they could not sell their houses. This problem is clearly explained by one interviewee in the peri-urban area of Pamplona, “the people want to go and live in the city because they have had children and it’s inconvenient driving all day, to and from, to take them to school or to after extracurricular activities or wherever they may have to go, and then again for their own interests, they decide or have decided to leave. What happens? As we are in a financial recession they can’t sell the apartment, the house, for the price they might want, then they don’t go, but as soon as they sell the house, they will go.” (NAE01, male, aged 47, exurban).

4.4.2  Place, Life Course and Family Cycle As the analysis of the interviews evidenced, the characteristics of the rural places play a critical role in their inward migrations. Family networks and friendships, labour markets and accessibilities, identities, natural amenities, and so forth, differentially configure the territories for the arrival of potential immigrant sociological profiles. These issues could be understood as the functionalities of the territory that underlie the relationship between the migrant and the place. Nevertheless, this relationship may evolve and change over time, according to biographical moments and family cycles. For example, in the case of remote rural areas in mountainous regions with a dispersed habitat and an aged population, as is the case of the Navarrese Pyrenees and Sierra de Francia regions, the characteristics of the territory may present difficulties that do not enable the settlement of certain types of potential new residents. These may include limited labour markets, difficulties in finding a house to rent, poor accessibility to services, and so on. These conditions establish a filter for the initiatives that can successfully be carried out in the mountains. As one of our interviewees remembered, “When you come here you don’t come with great expectations because clearly you know and understand what a valley can offer; it’s the hotel trade, timber if anything is happening, cattle, schools. That is

62

J. Oliva and M. J. Rivera

what’s on offer. In one of these or you have an initiative and you set it up or not; it is what it is.” (PNE08, female, aged 38, returned). Nevertheless, despite the restrictions a rural place may have to attract different profiles of migrants, it is important that the possibilities offered by the place fulfil migrant’s needs, whether they are linked to symbolic or material aspects; and these needs are inextricably linked to the life course or the family cycle of the migrant. For instance, those remote rural areas can be a possibility for those in need of a job, even if it is temporary and precarious, in order to make a great change in her/his life. In fact, those employed in the care services do not usually consider their stay as a long-term project in the area. Rather it is a temporary episode, which is frequently linked to the initial contracts that, will allow them to legalize their stay in the country or provide stability while finding other destinations. For example, one interviewee who arrived from Latin America and was employed as a live-in caregiver expressed, “I arrived here in this country without relatives, (…) I arrived to whatever, because the possibilities then were to travel to Italy, Canada, or Spain. I chose Spain because of the language and because I was coming alone (…), and the fear was that I was illegal after three months’”. (PNE20, female, aged 31, labour migration). However, the mutual understanding between the possibilities of the place and migrant’s life course or family cycle goes beyond providing a temporary job to begin a new life in the country. As explained, the family still represents a tie for mutual aid between generations. As a result, the family village becomes a possibility, not just for those evicted from the city due to the crisis, but it also represents a resource for critical stages in migrants’ life like parenting or at critical junctures such as separations. Similarly, this migration may also be driven by the need to take care of elders. For instance, in the fieldwork carried out in the Navarrese Pyrenees and in the Gran Vega of Seville, the profiles of women employed in public services (teachers, nurses) who return choosing destinations in the town are repeated. Often, they come for reasons related to family responsibilities, such as the need to care for parents or the decision to have children; but it is also due to links with the hometown, such as the presence of family and friends, property maintenance, etc. In this sense, the fieldwork reveals synchronized strategies of family returns that have involved different life courses, homes and family cycles. For example, this is illustrated by the case of an interviewee, who lived outside the town from aged 14–35. “I lived in the [regional capital], I had my job (…) and because of the children… Well, families and so, I have come to live in the town, (…) and my brother [who worked outside] has also returned and my father retired, was out, and now also he’s back.” (PN06, female, aged 38 aged, returned). These combinations of family cycles and vital projects are frequent among families with resources in the territory (identities, family, friends, houses, real estate). Residence outside, in the city or in other areas, constitutes an episodic moment in the face of intermittent rural stays. Nonetheless, an economic, family or work situation can finally motivate the return to the home village, “I don’t like the village, I came here because things were happening here (...) we leased a farm [in another village in the valley] and we were living [there] ten years and then, when it finished

4  New Rural Residents, Territories for Vital Projects and the Context of the Crisis…

63

[the leasing contract], it coincided with my brother leaving to go to Pamplona (…) and so we ended up here.” (PNE12, female, aged 47, returned). In some cases, the arrival of migrants at a new stage in their lifecourse or family cycle results in a lateral migration within villages of the same area. This is especially so in those territories characterised by a dispersed habitat and strong depopulation that tend to concentrate the services in the county headers. For example, at certain moments of migrants’ lives, a closer proximity to the services such as schools, health centres, and so forth becomes a reason to consider lateral migration.

4.5  D  iscussion: What Kind of Vital Ventures Mean Moving to the Rural in the Context of the Crisis? What kind of vital ventures mean moving to the rural? What was the impact of the crisis on them? Migrations to rural areas over the second half of the last century were understood as early signs of the erosion of cultural imaginary that supported the Fordist modernization ideology. The variety of new rural settlers have gradually been converging during the following decades, their plural life projects and diverse expectations could be understood as the most critical aspects of that development model; for example, back to the countryside, the search for a quality of life destroyed by the industrial city, the construction of social distinction far away from urban massification, looking for a reliable setting and community that is a way out of the “rat race” of urban life, etc. In contrast, the cases analysed in the Spanish rural territories in a time of crisis show particularly relevant characteristics for understanding migrations to the rural in a postglobal society and the impact of the long-lasting recession on these areas. It does not seem to be similar in different countries and cultural contexts. We have provided a general overview to the diversity of situations that can be found in those who migrated to the Spanish rural areas. The findings and conclusions that came up from the analysis of the experiences of migrations to rural as described by the profiles interviewed point to three main issues. First, the moves to the countryside are processes that should be understood within the stage and needs of the family life in new rural residents, such as the labour and residential strategies. Second, the personal narratives show that the characteristics and functionalities of the territories play a key role in the decision to migrate. Third, the socioeconomic context may be an important pre-condition of migration to the rural. Each rural typology (remote and mountain areas, peri-urban regions, hyperproductive farming areas) welcome or relegate different groups of new rural residents. Its conditions and characteristics (housing and labour markets, accessibilities, amenities) enable or prevent the settlement of specific sociological profiles. If the recession had an impact on the arrival of new residents to rural areas, then it has also had an important effect in the reshaping of the local and regional economic dynamics.

64

J. Oliva and M. J. Rivera

The new reconfiguration has changed the attractiveness of the place in order to appeal to new residents and, at the same time, to expel new and local residents. In Spanish rural areas the home village and the family have traditionally been the place to return to when times are hard times and in recessions. Family networks and resources in the village (such as homes, real estate, farms, local business) and temporary work in local labour markets can support resilience. Failure to enter urban professional careers or to face up to long lasting unemployment situations in the city might mean a return to the rural. In this way, return migration linked to the crisis denotes the complementary role of rural labour in the urban labour markets, and the difficulties of staying and progressing in the cities in times of recession. The Spanish cases analysed also reflect the failed aspects of migratory projects towards rural areas. Sometimes it is the best option but it is not easy for many. The dreams that do not materialize, the conditions that some groups face in the village turn into a small local hell, whereas other groups of new rural residents may enjoy the paradise. Besides, those forced to return from the city because of similar reasons could also be included. In this sense, the impact of the recession has lavished failures and mismatches in vital projects and migrations to the rural in both environments. For example, this impact was also evident in the case of those bigger villages with a stronger productive fabric based on an agroindustry orientated to global markets. This return of nationals to rural areas has sometimes given rise to new conflicts between former labour migrants and new national residents looking for a job. Specifically, after the recession commenced, some of the unemployed nationals looked for their old jobs within the agro-industry, jobs which had been relegated to foreign labour migrants, mostly Eastern Europeans, Latin Americans and Moroccans. The hardship experienced in urban areas caused by the impact of the recession upon labour markets, along with the imposed politics of austerity, led to some people considering moving to the countryside; this was due to their circumstances of unemployment, poor salaries, evictions, and so forth. Within this context, rural areas presented three possible advantages. Firstly, life in rural territories is expected to be cheaper than in urban territories; for example, the lower price of housing, fewer possibilities to expend money in recreational activities and so forth. Secondly, many urban residents were descendants of those involved in the rural exodus experienced in Spain during the last century. As such, many of them have a close relationship with the place where their grandparents and relatives might still live. And thirdly, the representation of the village according to bucolic and communitarian imagery also led us to be more confident regarding assertions of mutual aid between neighbours.

4  New Rural Residents, Territories for Vital Projects and the Context of the Crisis…

65

4.6  Conclusions: The Future for Migration to the Rural The increase and diversification of migration to rural areas has led to a revision of the studies that finally highlight its relevance to understanding the postglobal society. The focus has evolved from the approaches centred on counterurbanisation to more complex, holistic and comprehensive visions of migrations to the rural. Consequently, the intrinsic dynamism of these projects requires analysis from approaches that combine synchronic and diachronic perspectives, in order to understand the relevance of the move to the countryside. The chapter has evinced three important facts that should be highlighted. Firstly, the great impact of the financial and economic crisis on Spain has contributed to reshaping the relationship between the rural territories and the new rural residents. In fact, the analysis of the personal narratives expressed in the interviews has enabled us to see how the migrants’ experience of the crisis played a key role in the aforementioned relationship. Specifically, the narratives of new rural residents show different dimensions in which the impact of the crisis may be observed. It has facilitated the arrival of an ex-urban population looking for a place to weather the effects of the crisis in the city. It has meant the reconfiguration of some economic activities and the deterioration of job opportunities for rural people. Finally, it has, congruently, eroded migrants’ vital projects for the present and the future. Secondly, although the literature has, to a great extent, explained diverse patterns of migration to rural areas driven by a positive assessment of ‘the rural’ (i.e. pursuit of a better quality of life, a safer place for raising children and so on), the recession has added a pattern based more on a negative drive. That is, the rural area as the best, or the only, chance to face the crisis. Within this context, it is important to note the dual role played by the traditional family in Mediterranean societies; in addition to representing the main buffer in confronting the crisis, it is also responsible for the close ties that those urban populations have kept with the family village, since their parents or grandparents were the protagonists of the previous rural exodus. Thus, the family and family place constitute essential assets and social capital that need to be considered, in order to understand the crisis-related urban to rural migrations, as has been the case in other studies on Mediterranean countries (Gkartzios 2013, see also Figueiredo et al. in this book). Nevertheless, more research into new patterns of migration to the rural in the milieu of a crisis is needed to better comprehend the impact of the recession over a long-term period, even in those cases in which the role of the family and family place become weaker. Thirdly, and closely related to the previous idea, it is important to emphasize the uncertainty of the rural transformation caused by crisis-related migration to the rural. We cannot foresee yet if this migration will finally take root in the rural place or whether these migrants will move back to the city and resume previous life projects once the recession is over. In so doing, this type of migration probably represents just a temporal withdrawal of migrants’ life project. This may also be the question regarding those who moved to the rural driven by positive assessments, and suddenly found themselves trapped by the consequences of the crisis. Although

66

J. Oliva and M. J. Rivera

many respondents explained that they would go back to the city, it is too early to anticipate what decision they will finally take if the circumstances change; i.e., whether they will leave or feel entangled in the rural place in a process of post-­ migration rationalisation (Halfacree and Rivera 2013). To conclude, although the chapter has evinced some of the processes related to the migration to rural areas in a context of profound and long-lasting recession, it is still soon to assess whether they imply more permanent changes or they represent just a temporal stand-by situation within the previous rural development and migration patterns.

Annex: Selected Interviewees

Sex & age of Relationship with the CODE the respondent village Gran Vega region (Seville): peri-urban rurality GV01 Female, 25 New resident, born in Romania GV04 Female, 33 New resident in a village GV05 Male, 78 Returned

Family situation Occupation

Married with children Married with children Married with dependent person GV07 Female, 32 Returned Married without children GV10 Female, 44 Exurban new resident Married with children in private development GV11 Male, 26 Born in Romania Married with children GV13 Female, 35 Exurban new resident Married with children in private development Pyrenean Valleys (Navarre): mountainous, remote rurality PN03 Male, 32 New resident Single, without children PN06 Female, 38 Returned Married with children PN08 Female, 39 Returned Married with children PN10 Female, 56 Returned Married with children PN12 Female, 47 Returned Married with children

Unemployed Teacher Retired

Teacher Housewife

Occasional employee Housewife

Owner of rural hostel Teacher Housewife Nurse Nurse

4  New Rural Residents, Territories for Vital Projects and the Context of the Crisis…

CODE PN20

Sex & age of the respondent Female, 31

PN21

Female, 49

Relationship with the village New resident, born in Bolivia Returned

PN22

Female, 43

Returned

67

Family situation Occupation Unmarried Employed in catering Married with children Unmarried

Owner of rural hostel

Care services entrepreneur Las Batuecas-Sierra de Francia (Salamanca): mountainous, remote rurality SAE09 Male, 44 Exurban Single without Hotel industry children SAE14 Female, 43 Exurban (Husband is Married without Restoration, craftwork (a) returned) children Metropolitan Area of Pamplona (Navarre): peri-urban rurality NAE01 Male, 47 Exurban Married with 1 University professor child Qualified industrial NE06 Male, 38 Exurban Married with children position Strawberry region (Huelva): hyperproductive rurality (agro-industry) HUE08 Male, 29 Labour migrant Married with 1 Temporary worker in child agro-industry HUE12 Male, 44 Exurban Married with Public administration children HUE13 Female, 39 Exurban Married with 1 Pensioner (sick pension) child Ex-seasonal farm labourer HUE20 Male, in his Exurban Living with his Occasional businesses fifties partner. HUE21 Male, in his Exurban Single without Financial advisor forties children

References Bailey A (2011) Population geography: lifecourse matters. Prog Hum Geogr 33(3):407–418 Bayona-i-Carrasco J, Gil-Alonso F (2013) Is foreign immigration the solution to rural depopulation. The case of Catalonia (1996–2009). Sociol Rural 53(1):26–51 Bell M, Osti G (2010) Mobilities and ruralities: an introduction. Sociol Rural 50(3):200–204 Berry B (1976) The Counterurbanisation process: urban America since 1970″. In: Berry BJL (ed) Urbanization and counterurbanisation. Sage, Beverly Hills Boyle P, Halfacree K (eds) (1998) Migration into rural areas. Wiley, Chichester Buller H, Hoggart K (1994) The social integration of British home owners into French rural communities. J Rural Stud 10(2):197–210 Camarero L (1993) Del éxodo rural al éxodo urbano: ocaso y renacimiento de los asentamientos rurales en España. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, Madrid Camarero L (ed) (2009) The rural population in Spain. From disequilibrium to social sustainability. La Caixa Foundation, Barcelona

68

J. Oliva and M. J. Rivera

Camarero L, Oliva J (2016a) Social inequalities across unbalanced territories in rural Spain. Port J Soc Sci 15(3):349–366 Camarero L, Oliva J (2016b) Understanding rural change: mobilities, diversities, and hybridizations. Sociálni Studia/Soc Stud 13(2):93–112 Camarero L, Oliva J (2019) Thinking in rural gap: mobility and social inequalities. Palgrave Commun 5(1) Camarero LA, Sampedro R, Oliva J (2012) Foreigners, neighbours, immigrants: translocal mobilities in rural areas in Spain. In: Hedberg CH, Do Carmo R (eds) Translocal ruralism. Mobility and connectivity in European rural spaces. Springer, London, pp 155–176 Casado MA, Kaiser C, Warnes A (2004) Northern European retired residents in nine southern European areas: characteristics, motivation and adjustment. Ageing Soc 24(3):353–381 Castle EM (ed) (1995) The changing American countryside. Rural people and places. University Press of Kansas, Kansas Champion A (ed) (1989) Counterurbanization, the changing pace and nature of population deconcentration. Edward Arnold, London Champion A (1998) Studying counterurbanisation and the rural population turnaround. In: Boyle P, Halfacree K (eds) Migration into rural areas. Wiley, Chichester, pp 21–40 Champion T, Graeme H (eds) (2014) New forms of urbanization: beyond the urban/rural dichotomy. Ashgate, Aldershot Cloke P et al (1995) The new middle classes and the social constructs of rural living. In: Buttler T, Savage M (eds) Social change and the middle classes. UCL Press, London, pp 220–240 Clout H (1972) Rural geography: an introduction survey. Pergamon, Oxford Collantes F, Pinilla V, Sáez A, Silvestre J (2014) Reducing depopulation in rural Spain: the impact of immigration. Popul Space Place 20:606–621 Congress of Local and Regional Authorities (2017) A better future for Europe’s rural areas. Governance Committee, Resolution 422, CG33(2017) 16 Final. 19 Oct 2017 Consejo Económico y Social de España (Economic and Social Council of Spain) (2018) El medio rural y su vertebración social y territorial (The rural areas and its territorial structuring). Consejo Económico y Social de España, Madrid EAPN-ES (2019) El estado de la pobreza. Seguimiento del indicador de pobreza y exclusión social en España 2008–2018. European Anti-Poverty Network-Spain, Madrid Elshof H, Haartsen T, van Wissen L, Mulder C (2017) The influence of village attractiveness on flows of movers in a declining rural region. J Rural Stud 56:39–52 European Commission (2011) Poverty in rural areas of the EU. EU Agricultural Briefs, 1 May Geist C, McManus P (2008) Geographical mobility over the life course: motivations and implications. Popul Space Place 14:283–303 Gkartzios M (2013) ‘Leaving Athens’: narratives of counterurbanisation in times of recession. J Rural Stud 32:158–167 Gkartzios M, Scott M (2010) Residential mobilities and house building in rural Ireland: evidence from three case studies. Sociol Rural 50(1):64–84. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2009.00502.x Gkartzios M, Scott K (2017) A cultural panic in the province? Counterurban mobilities, creativity, and crisis in Greece. Popul Space Place 21(8):843–855 Gkartzios M, Remoundou K, Garrod G (2017) Emerging geographies of mobility: the role of regional towns in Greece’s ‘counterurbanisation story’. J Rural Stud 55:22–32 Gustafson P (2008) Transnationalism in retirement migrations: the case of north European retirees in Spain. Ethn Racial Stud 31(3):451–475 Haartsen T, Stockdale A (2017) Selective belonging: how rural newcomer families with children become stayers. Popul Space Place 24:1–9 Halfacree K (1994) The importance of ‘the rural’ in the constitution of counterurbanisation: evidence from England in the 1980. Sociol Rural 34:164–189 Halfacree K (2001) Constructing the object: taxonomic practices, ‘counterurbanisation’ and positioning marginal rural settlement. Int J Popul Geogr 7(6):395–411

4  New Rural Residents, Territories for Vital Projects and the Context of the Crisis…

69

Halfacree K (2008) To revitalise counterurbanisation research? Recognising an international and fuller picture. Popul Space Place 14(6):479–495 Halfacree K (2012) Heterolocal identities? Counter-urbanisation, second homes and rural consumption in the era of mobilities. Popul Space Place 18:209–224 Halfacree KH, Boyle PJ (1993) The challenge facing migration research: the case for a biographical approach. Prog Hum Geogr 17(3):333–348 Halfacree K, Rivera MJ (2013) Moving to the countryside … and staying: lives beyond representations. Sociol Rural 52(1):92–114 Hansen HK, Aner LG (2017) On the location dynamics of highly educated people migrating to peripheral regions of Denmark. Popul Space Place 23(8):e2076 Haug B, Dann G, Mehmetoglu M (2007) Little Norway in Spain. From tourism to migration. Ann Tour Res 34(1):202–222 Hedberg C, Do Carmo R (2012) Translocal Ruralism: internal and international mobilities in European rural space. Springer, London Hoggart K, Mendoza C (1999) African immigrant workers in Spanish agriculture. Sociol Rural 39(4):538–562 Holl A (2018) Local employment growth patterns and the great recession: the case of Spain. J Reg Sci 58:837–863 Kasimis C (2008) Survival and expansion: migrants in Greek rural regions. Popul Space Place 14(6):511–524 Kasimis C, Papadopoulos A (2013) Rural transformations and family farming in contemporary Greece. In: Ortiz-Miranda D, Moragues-Faus A, Arnalte-Alegre E (eds) Agriculture in Mediterranean Europe: between old and new paradigms. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 263–293 Kasimis C, Papadopoulos AG, Pappas C (2010) Gaining from rural migrants: migrant employment strategies and socioeconomic implications for rural labour markets. Sociol Rural 50(3):258–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2010.00515.x Kasimis C, Papadopoulos AG, Zacopoulou E (2003) Migrants in rural Greece. Sociol Rural 43(2):167–184 Kayser B (1990) La Renaissance rurale, sociologie des campagnes du monde occidental. Édition Armand Colin, Paris King R, Warnes T, William A (2000) Sunset lives. British retirement migration to the Mediterranean. Berg, Oxford Kraack A, Kenway J (2002) Place, time and stigmatised youthful identities: bad boys in paradise. J Rural Stud 18:145–155 Milbourne P (2007) Re-populating rural studies: migrations, movements and mobilities. J Rural Stud 23(3):381–386 Ministerio de Política Territorial y Función Pública (Ministry Territorial Policy and Civil Service) (2019) Informe Despoblación. Reto Demográfico e Igualdad. (Report Depopulation. Demographic Challenge and Equality. Gobierno de España, Madrid Mitchell C (2004) Making sense of counterurbanisation. J Rural Stud 20(1):15–34 Mitchell C (2008) Counterurbanisation and the growth of Canada’s rural and small town municipalities: 1996–2001. Can J Reg Sci 31(1):117–132 Morén-Alegret R (2008) Ruralphilia and urbophobia versus urbophilia and ruralphobia? Lessons from immigrant integration processes in small towns and rural areas in Spain. Popul Space Place 14(6):537–552 Moss L, Glorioso R (eds) (2014) Global amenity migration: transforming rural culture economy and landscape. The New Ecology Press, Kaslo Murphy E, Scott M (2014) ‘After the crash’: life satisfaction, everyday financial practices and rural households in post Celtic Tiger Ireland. J Rural Stud 34:37–49 Mulder CH (2007) The family context and residential choice: a challenge for new research. Popul Space Place 13:265–278

70

J. Oliva and M. J. Rivera

O’Reilly K (2000) The British on the Costa del Sol: transnational identities and local communities. Routledge, London O’Reilly K (2007) Intra-European migration and the mobility-enclosure dialectic. Sociology 41(2):277–293 OECD (2016) OECD regional outlook 2016. Productive regions for inclusive societies. OECD Publications, Paris Oliva J (2010) Rural melting-pots, Mobilities and fragilities: reflections on the Spanish case. Sociol Rural 50(3):277–295 Papadopoulos AG (2012) Transnational immigration in rural Greece: analysing the different Mobilities of Albanian immigrants. In: Hedberg C, do Carmo R (eds) Translocal ruralism. Springer, London, pp 163–184 Philip LJ, MacLeod M (2018) Tales from a small Island: applying the ‘path-dependency’ thesis to explore migration to a remote rural community. Sociol Rural 58(1):147–170 Phillips M (2002) Distant bodies? Rural studies, political-economy and poststructuralism. Sociol Rural 42(2):81–105 Rivera MJ (2007a) Migration to rural Navarre. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie (TESG) 98(1):32–41 Rivera MJ (2007b) La ciudad no era mi lugar. Los significados residenciales de la vuelta al campo en Navarra. Universidad Pública de Navarra, Pamplona Rivera MJ (2013) Translating ExUrban dwellers’ rural representations into residential practices. In: Silva L y Figuereido E (eds) shaping rural areas in Europe. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 25–39 Rivera M, Mormont M (2007) Neo-rurality and the different meanings of the countryside. In: Bessiére C et  al (cords) Les mondes ruraux à l’éprevue des sciences sociales. Quae-­ Symposcience, Dijon, pp 34–45 Sampedro R, Camarero L (2018) Foreign immigrants in depopulated rural areas: local services and the construction of welcoming communities. Soc Incl 6(3):337–346 Sánchez-Zamora P, Gallardo-Cobos R, Ceña-Delgado F (2014) Rural areas face the economic crisis: Analyzing the determinants of successful territorial dynamics. J Rural Stud 35(3):11–25 Scott M, Murphy E, Gkartzios M (2017) Placing ‘home’ and ‘family’ in rural residential Mobilities. Sociol Rural 57:598–621 Sheller and Urry (2006) The new Mobilities paradigm. Environ Plan A 38:207–226 Silva M, Cardoso A (2017) Crisis and the impacts of crisis on the inhabitants of rural space: the case of a village in north West Portugal. Cuadernos de Desarrollo Rural 14(79):1–23 Simard M (2017) International migration and rural areas. Cross-national comparative perspectives. Routledge, London Smith DP, Phillips DA (2001) Socio-cultural representations of greentrified pennine rurality. J Rural Stud 17(4):457–469 Stockdale A (2016) Contemporary and ‘messy’ rural in-migration processes: comparing Counterurban and lateral rural migration. Popul Space Place 22:599–616 Stockdale A, Catney G (2014) A life course perspective on urban-rural migration: the importance of the local context. Popul Space Place 20:83–98 Stockdale A, MacLeod M, Philip L (2013) Connected lifecourses: influences on and experiences of ‘midlife’ in in-migration to rural areas. Popul Space Place 19(3):239–257 Stockdale A (2014) Unravelling the migration decision-making process: English early retirees moving to rural mid-Wales. J Rural Stud 34:161–171 Suarez-Navaz L (2007) Immigration and the politics of space allocation in rural Spain: the case of Andalucía. J Peasant Stud 34(2):207–239 Urry J (1995) A middle-class countryside? In: Butler T, Savage M (eds) Social change and the middle classes. University College London Press, London, pp 205–219 Woods M (2016) International migration, agency and regional development in rural Europe. Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica 62(3):569–593

4  New Rural Residents, Territories for Vital Projects and the Context of the Crisis…

71

Jesús Oliva  is Professor of Sociology and researcher at the Institute for Advanced Social Research i-Communitas (Public University of Navarre, Spain). He is member of the Research and Study Group Southern and Mediterranean Europe (European Society for Rural Sociology) and his publications and lines of research focus on regional development and territorial planning, labour processes, and mobilities (migrations, tourism, automobility, commuting). María Jesús Rivera  is Associate Professor at the Department of Sociology and Social Work at the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) in Spain. Her research interests include processes of social change in contemporary rurality, especially those related to the impact of new residents in rural areas, migration to rural areas, processes of social inequality, and provision of rural services.

Chapter 5

Respatialization of Migrations and Differentiated Ruralities in Times of Crisis in Southern Italy Alessandra Corrado, Giulio Iocco, and Martina Lo Cascio

5.1  Introduction1 Since 2007–2008, the convergence of multiple crises – the economic crisis together with the so-called “refugee crisis” – have produced significant tendencies towards the restructuring of migration processes at the European Union (EU) level (Castles 2011; Koehler et al. 2010; Roos and Zaun 2016; Tilly 2011). In Southern European countries, these assumed several specific dynamics. Firstly, as a direct consequence of the economic crisis, these countries witnessed the coexistence of a rise in e-migration rates with a consistent reduction of labour in-migration. In parallel, the economic recession also set in motion changes in the mobility trajectories of immigrant populations (Lafleur and Stanek 2017). Secondly, in the context of the crisis of the European “border regime” (Campesi 2011; De Genova 2016; Mezzadra and Neilson 2013), the adoption of increasingly restrictive and securitarian national and European migration policies led to an increase in the numbers of undocumented migrants, as well as of refugees and asylum seekers, who were forced to join the ranks of the cheapest and most precarious labour force. Italy is one of the primary landing points for in-migration flows towards the European continent, from the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean. As a result, the country has experienced migration dynamics in a context characterised 1  We are grateful for continuous and stimulating exchanges with Carlotta Ebbreo and Domenico Perrotta, and for graphic support to Victor Valencia.

A. Corrado (*) · G. Iocco Department of Political and Social Sciences – Study Center for Rural Development, University of Calabria, Rende, Italy e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] M. L. Cascio Department of Humanities, Philosophie, Communication, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 F. N. Döner et al. (eds.), Crisis and Post-Crisis in Rural Territories, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50581-3_5

73

74

A. Corrado et al.

by growing social tensions and a heightening politicisation of migration, at a national as well as a European level. As in other Southern European countries, the convergence of multiple crises clearly resulted in a restructuring of social and spatial mobility, and a reterritorialization of migrations (Camarero et al. 2012, 2013; Caruso and Corrado 2015; Papadopoulos et  al. 2019; Sampedro and Camarero 2016). Crucially, this process often entailed the reorienting of migrants towards rural and marginal areas (Corrado 2017; Membretti et al. 2017). It follows that international migration is no longer an urban experience (McAreavey 2016). Small, rural communities facing different new migration dynamics have emerged as “new immigrant destinations” (Jentsch and Simard 2009; McAreavey 2012) in the Italian context too. This contribution analyzes the effects of the crisis in terms of a respatialization of migrations in rural areas, following multiple crises and connected processes. It highlights how migrant labourers experience different working and living conditions in rural areas, depending on the specific forms of reorganization that have occurred in the agri-food chains in which they are employed. International studies have focused on the definition of new rurality and the experience of neo-rurals – as “back-to-the-landers” (Halfacree 2007, 2008; Wilbur 2013a, b) or “new peasants” (Sivini and Corrado 2013) – highlighting the search for alternative lifestyles, political perspectives and practices. However, any specific consideration has been rarely dedicated to foreign migrants in the analysis of a new rurality. The development of alternative agri-food projects – supported by social mobilizations from below against the exploitation of migrant farm labourers and small producers within mainstream supermarket-dominated food chains (cfr. Iocco et al. 2019) – has set out new employment and income-earning solutions in agri-food for both migrants and locals, in order to avoid emigration elsewhere and to stay in or (re)connect differently to rural areas. This contribution aims at illustrating the experiences and meanings of alternative agri-food projects for the different subjects involved in them. The methodology builds on: an extensive review of the academic and grey literature; the analysis of data on mobility dynamics and changes in labour markets in Southern Italy in the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis; and evidence – issued from empirical research carried out through ethnographic methods (participant observation, semi- and unstructured interviews with diverse actors) in two regions of Southern Italy, Calabria and Sicily, between 2010 and 2018. The chapter is organized into three parts. The first presents a theoretical overview, putting in dialogue the rural (labour) migration studies and those on new rurality. The second offers an analysis of the context of the economic crisis and migratory respatialization considering implications for rural areas in Southern Italy, especially focusing on migrants’ labour conditions in Calabria and Sicily. The third presents two case studies of alternative agri-food projects, pointing out differences in the experience and perspective of the subjects involved. Conclusions follow.

5  Respatialization of Migrations and Differentiated Ruralities in Times of Crisis…

75

5.2  T  heoretical Framework: Migrations, Neo-Rurals and New Ruralities The respatialization of migrations towards rural areas has been related to new forms of mobility supported by networks and connections (Bock et al. 2016), as well as the persistent and growing need for cheap and informal workers existing within the labour-intensive sectors in transformation. Both in the Italian context and in the Southern European region as a whole, such a demand has been fuelled by the restructuring of farming and agricultural labour processes that has occurred since the 1990s following the intensification of production, the vertical integration of food chains and the heightening of global competition (Colloca and Corrado 2013; Corrado et al. 2016; Gertel and Sippel 2014), and the development of new economic activities  – such as tourism, construction, manufacturing, etc. (Kasimis and Papadopoulos 2005; Kasimis et al. 2010). This process of restructuring has resulted in a growth in the recourse to the use of waged, non-family labour, predominantly provided by foreign migrants. In Italy, the trend of respatialization of migrations towards rural areas has also been partially fuelled by important changes in policies of reception of asylum seekers and refugees aimed at a geographic dispersal of them. These have resulted in an increase in the numbers of asylum seekers and refugees hosted in reception centres located in peripheral and rural areas, in some cases with the aim of contrasting demographic and socio-economic decline, and contributing to the revitalization and development of these areas (Membretti et al. 2017; Corrado and D’Agostino 2018). Labour-related as well as social, ethnic/race inequalities have been generated within the processes of territorialization of migrations (McAreavey 2016). In relation to the dynamics of mobility and migration/asylum policies, in fact, diversified patterns of inclusion and development have emerged. Indeed, especially in Southern Italy, migrants and refugees employed as agricultural labourers often experience extremely precarious working and living conditions. Non-EU migrants, and especially Africans, have seen progressive deterioration of their living and working conditions in the aftermath of the crisis and following the 2004 and 2006 accession of Eastern European countries (Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria) to the EU. Over recent decades, post-productivist and new rurality theories have pointed out the key role that neo-rurals have played in the deep changes that have occurred in rural areas in Europe, through the promotion of social and economic restructuring beyond agricultural productivism, i.e. with tourism, quality productions, diversification and environmental conservation (Silva and Figueiredo 2013). The neo-rurals investigated are mostly white, Western and educated, and tend to have moved deliberately from urban areas to rural areas, where they strive to maintain a “rural idyll”, enjoy a natural life, or construct a “new rurality” (cfr. Kay 2008). This is contributing to rural development dynamics by the reorganization of agri-food relations according to alternative models, the co-production of agro-ecological practices and repeasantization, often through a rural-urban continuum or connections and by building new networks and nested markets. Yet, these subjective paths have

76

A. Corrado et al.

developed to cope with the economic crisis (Gkartzios 2013; Kasimis and Papadopoulos 2013) by return migration too. Foreign migrants, working as wage labourers or arriving as refugees in rural or peripheral areas, also fall into the category of neo-rurals. Their experience is certainly conditioned by their migration path or condition, and the construction of ethnic- or race-based relationships (Osti and Ventura 2012; Corrado and Osti 2019). Likewise the participation in alternative agri-food practices and networks can be different. Some studies – basically in the United States – have pointed out the institutional racism preventing communities of colour from participating in both agribusiness and sustainable agriculture, farmworker food insecurity, and the racial and economic inequalities shaping the food movement within neoliberalism (Alkon 2012; Alkon and McCullen 2011; Alkon and Agyeman 2011; Mares and Alkon 2011). If the literature on the new rurality has highlighted different representation, practices and conflicts between locals and neo-rurals (Rivera and Mormont 2007), or among neo-rurals themselves, migration processes and conditions can still affect the forms of engagement in alternative agri-food projects, mobility or immobility in rural areas, socio-economic inclusion or autonomy. By considering this, we can envisage a plurality of forms and practices of the new rurality, and in doing so we speak of diverse or differentiated new “ruralites” (cfr. Halfacree 2012).

5.3  M  igration Dynamics in Rural Southern Italy Since the Crisis The Italian economy was more deeply affected by the crisis than most other EU countries. Between 2007 and 2017, the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) experienced an overall decrease of 5.5% (whereas the EU’s GDP grew by 8.4% over the same period) (SVIMEZ 2018: 3). Furthermore, the economic crisis was deeper and lasted longer in Southern Italy than in the country’s northern regions. Between 2008 and 2018, the GDP of southern Italian regions decreased by 10.4% (whereas in Central and Northern Italy it decreased by 2.4%) (SVIMEZ 2019: 13). Here, the crisis had a profound impact on all the sectors of the economy, aggravating a decade-­ long trend in the deterioration of regional economic performance, with serious implications for the predicament of the working class. In Southern Italy, employment levels had already been stagnating since the early 2000s. When the broader economic crisis happened these experienced a further and even more dramatic dip. The number of employed people fell by 9% between 2007–2014. At the end of the period, the number of employed was at 5.8 million people, the lowest level since 1977 (SVIMEZ 2015: 14). Since 2015, a weak increase in the level of employment has occurred in the context of a marked precarisation of employment relations – evident in the rise of part-­ time and/or temporary employment in lower qualified jobs and a simultaneous decrease in the full-time employment in higher qualified jobs – and a more general

5  Respatialization of Migrations and Differentiated Ruralities in Times of Crisis…

77

downgrading of working conditions (SVIMEZ 2019). The trend described has led to a rapid increase in the number of people estimated to be in a condition of absolute and relative poverty or at risk of becoming poor, crucially fuelled by an increase in numbers of working poor.2 These developments within the southern Italian economy and labour market, and the deepening social crisis associated with them, has further fuelled a trend towards the consistent increase in flows of internal and international emigration dating back to the early 2000s. Available evidence shows that Southern Italians are making an important contribution to what has been described as a “new cycle in Italian emigration” (Pugliese 2018).3 Since 2002, approximately 2,147,246 people migrated from southern Italian regions  – of which about 16% went abroad while the rest moved to central and northern Italian regions. These new emigrants are not a homogeneous group. They are both skilled and unskilled labourers (Pugliese 2018: 13–15). Approximately half of the people who have left since 2002 (i.e. 1,102,174) were young people aged below 35 (SVIMEZ 2019: 22).4 Simultaneously to this new cycle of emigration, southern Italian regions have also experienced an increase in the number of foreign immigrants. This phenomenon was the result of a respatialization of migrations which occurred over the same years under the impetus of new dynamics in international and internal migrations. Since the onset of the crisis, the country has experienced a decrease in the number of arrivals of new immigrants per year (cfr. Caruso and Corrado 2015: 59).5 This downturn in new arrivals of foreign migrants was therefore not only due to the economic crisis. Crucially, it was also determined by the concomitant blockade of flow decrees that annually dictate the entrant quotas for subordinate, seasonal and non-seasonal work as a consequence of the restructuring of the border regime (Corrado and D’Agostino 2018; Corrado et al. 2018).6 2  The trends described were marked by clear gendered and generational dynamics. In 2018, the level of female employment was equal only to 30.5% (compared to an EU 28 average level of 63.3%) (SVIMEZ 2019: 25). Secondly, young workers (i.e. those aged below 35) also performed worse than older working-class peers since the onset of the crisis, suffering most of the loss of employment opportunities. Between 2008 and 2018, the rate of employment of this segment plunged from 35.8% to 29% reaching a uniquely low rate within the whole European region. As a consequence, both poverty and working poverty appear to be more widespread among the under 35 s than in any other older segment of the population (SVIMEZ 2018: 13–23). 3  For the sake of clarity it is important to underscore that this new cycle of emigration sees the participation of Italians not only from southern regions – as predominantly occurred (with some exceptions) in past cycles of emigration – but also from the North (Pugliese 2018: 43-ffs.). 4  It is important to note that foreign residents in southern Italian regions also contributed to this trend. In fact, especially since the onset of the crisis, the immigrant population partially participated in the broader trend of growing migration rates from Italy to foreign countries. In 2007, foreign immigrants who left Italy were 19,819 (ISTAT 2008). In 2018, their number was equal to 40,228 – estimated 167,124 (ISTAT 2019a). 5  In 2007, 515,610 new entries of foreign residents were recorded into the Italian territory (ISTAT 2008). In 2018, the number of new arrivals had decreased to 285,500 [estimated 340,618] (ISTAT 2019a). 6  Overall, however, the number of immigrants present on the Italian territory continued to increase throughout the period. Between 2007 and 2016, the foreign population resident in Italy increased

78

A. Corrado et al.

A re-orientation of foreign migration flows towards rural areas was associated with a process of internal migration from northern to southern Italian regions. Since 2002, 1,226,531 new immigrants have settled in Southern Italian regions. The majority of them have taken up positions of salaried – and increasingly precarious – employment. This phenomenon has driven an increase in the number of foreign workers. Tellingly, such a general trend – recorded in the southern Italian economy since the early 2000s – assumed a particularly marked dimension in the early years of the crisis. Between 2008 and 2014, the number of foreign workers employed in the southern Italian economy grew by the impressive rate of 67% (SVIMEZ 2015: 14). The internal migration of foreigners was primarily fuelled by the loss of employment in the industrial and service sector of northern urban areas, or lack of employment opportunities for the new arrivals and those who searched for an insertion into the labour market (Caruso and Corrado 2015; Fullin and Reyneri 2013; Sacchetto and Vianello 2013). The re-orientation of migration flows towards southern Italian rural areas was incentivized by the lower costs of housing and living in rural areas of Southern Italy (in contrast to those of urban areas in the North of the country) – and the enticing perspective of reducing expenses in conditions of unexpected and enduring destitution and increasing savings to be sent home as remittances. For many migrant workers already established in Italy this process entailed a “migration of retrocession”; in fact, since the 1980s, Southern Italy has offered employment opportunities in the informal economy. Migrants wait to achieve regularization and working permits in order to move to northern Italy, where it is possible to find better employment, to settle there. But it is often pursued by migrants as an alternative to a new emigration abroad, and as an option not to put a definitive end to the migratory project with a return to the country of origin (Caruso and Corrado 2015; Corrado and D’Agostino 2016). The mobility from North to South goes hand in hand with a process or “ruralization” of migrations (Pugliese 2012), or “rurbanization” since it entails a flow towards small towns situated in rural areas (Caruso and Corrado 2015: 57). Two main trends are discernible from the existing official evidence in what appears to be an extremely heterogeneous social phenomenon: firstly there is the increase in the number of neo-EU migrants from Eastern Europe (especially women from Romania; cfr. Palumbo and Sciurba 2015, 2018); secondly, the increase in the number of African and Asian asylum seekers and refugees. Geographically, these new flows involved primarily the relatively larger “agro-towns” situated in the coastal areas where globalizing agri-food enclaves have emerged since the 1980s (Caruso and Corrado 2015: 69–71; Corrado et al. 2016). However, the respatialization of migration also involved smaller and more scattered villages and inner areas (Corrado and D’Agostino 2016; Corrado 2017), due also to the presence of non-EU migrants as refugees and asylum seekers. Thousands of these migrants, after falling into dramatic situations of legal and social invisibility, are recruited into economic by 2,023,317, which brought the total amount of foreign migrants in a regular administrative position to 5,359,000 at the end of 2016 (IDOS 2017). In contrast, over the last three years, the number of new arrivals has shown a steady decrease (Amnesty 2018; Ministero degli Interni).

5  Respatialization of Migrations and Differentiated Ruralities in Times of Crisis…

79

circuits characterized by particularly difficult working conditions, mainly in agriculture (Castronovo 2015; Corrado 2011; D’Agostino 2013; MEDU 2015; MSF 2016, 2018). Respatialization in rural areas has occurred in parallel with a trend towards the “agrarianization” of migrant labour (Pugliese 2012). That is, a progressive increase in the numbers of foreign workers employed in the agri-food sector or their regularization after having been employed informally for a time (Caruso and Corrado 2015: 57). In fact, the agricultural sector was not spared by the crisis – i.e., between 2008 and 2017, southern Italian agriculture lost 9.9% of its value added7 – however, it witnessed a relatively better performance than the other sectors of the economy,8 playing an important role in providing employment and income-earning opportunities (SVIMEZ 2016, 2018; ISMEA and SVIMEZ 2016). If nationals may recur also to pluriactivity or enter into farming as neo-peasants or neo-entrepreneurs, migrant labourers find their way especially in temporary, seasonal, casual and informal works, in the agricultural sector in southern Italian regions (Caruso and Corrado 2015; SVIMEZ 2016: 22). However, the quantitative analysis cannot represent the great heterogeneity of experiences and situations. Therefore, in the following paragraphs we attempt to analyze better the new forms of entrance in agriculture by looking at two regions in particular. The Cases of Calabria and Sicily The increase in the presence of migrants in rural areas needs to be set in the context of the restructuring of agriculture, the broader rural economy, and the rural labour market. Within this broader economic context, the presence of immigrants in Calabria and Sicily increased considerably from the onset of the crisis, in continuity with a trend that had already started in the late 1980s–1990s. The extent of the phenomenon can be partially grasped by analyzing the trends in the numbers of foreign residents in the two regions. In Calabria, in the 2000s, their number had already grown fourfold (Corrado and D’Agostino 2016). In 2008, the number of foreign residents in the region was estimated to be equal to 50,871 people (2.5% of the total population). In 2018, they amounted to 108,494 (5.5% of the total population) (ISTAT 2018). In contrast, in Sicily, the number of foreign residents witnessed a constant but substantially slow increase in the 2000s. In 2007, they totalled 78,000 people. Yet, in 2018, their number had reached 193,014 (3.8% of the total population). In both regions Romanians represent by far the most prominent national community (about 30% of the total population of foreign residents)  – followed by Moroccans in Calabria and Tunisians in Sicily (Busetta 2019; ISTAT 2018). In both regions, the coastal plains specializing in the intensive production of fruit and vegetables increasingly emerged as new immigrant destinations (CREA 2019). Over recent years however, the growing presence of foreign residents has also been importantly fuelled by a rapid increase in the numbers of asylum seekers and  In Northern Italy the same variation was +4.3%.  In particular, its performance was in stark contrast to that of the industrial sector, which experienced a decrease by 27.5% of its total value added (SVIMEZ 2018: 6). 7 8

80

A. Corrado et al.

refugees present in the regions’ internal areas. In Calabria, between 2014 and 2016, the number of asylum seekers and refugees hosted in the official reception structures doubled, reaching 5587 people (Corrado and D’Agostino 2018: 283–285). In 2018, they were 10,843 (ISTAT 2019b). In Sicily if the number of migrants with a regular work permit has decreased, the number of foreign residents having a permit as asylum seekers or for humanitarian reasons increased. In 2012, it was already equal to 34.5% of the total immigrant population and had become the first category of residence permit. In 2015, the number of asylum seekers present in centres and reception structures located in Sicily was equal to 13,999 people – i.e. 20.9% of the total number of asylum seekers present in Italy (Castronovo 2015). In 2018, they were 19,983 (ISTAT 2019c). Crucially for our analysis, the trend described above went hand in hand with a process of agrarianization of migrant labour (Pugliese 2012), by which the presence and importance of foreign migrants within the regional agricultural working class continued to increase – as it had already been doing since the late 1980s (Cicerchia and Pallara 2009: 111; CREA 2017, 2019). In this respect, it is important to underscore how the numbers of foreign residents in the regions reflect only partially the extent of the presence of foreign migrants within the two regions. These numbers, in fact, do not include those of the foreign migrants who are settled permanently in the area but not registered as resident, or present in the region only seasonally, or undocumented. Just as in its ruralization/rurbanization, also the agrarianization of migrant labour assumed a considerable extent in the regional coastal plains where foreign migrants have since the 1980s gradually come to play a central role as daily labourers, becoming the bulk of the agricultural workforce seasonally employed in the harvest of olives and, most importantly, fruits and vegetables.9 Exact figures in this field are difficult to obtain due to the persistent and high incidence of informal employment in the sector. However, official sources estimated the number of foreign agricultural workers in Calabria to be equal to 9350 people in 2007 (of which 6730 were non-EU) (Cicerchia and Pallara 2009: 111); by 2017, this number had reached 34,700 – of which 70% were European (Gaudio 2019: 323). In Sicily, the number of foreign agricultural workers was estimated to be equal to 7350 in 2007 (of which 6540 non-EU) (Cicerchia and Pallara 2009: 111). In 2017, the figure was 51,382 – of which 26,482 were non-EU (Macaluso 2019: 366). Following the crisis, important trends have been mostly visible in relation to the African population (of both Sub-Saharans and North Africans): first, the increase in the presence of Sub-Saharan workers coming from Northern Italy after having lost their employment – e.g. in Rosarno, Catania, Campobello (see Corrado and Perrotta 2012; Colloca and Corrado 2013; Castronovo 2015; Garrapa 2016; Lo Cascio 9  See the dynamics in the Plains of Gioia Tauro-Rosarno (Corrado 2011; Padoan 2011; Pugliese 2012; Garrapa 2016; MEDU 2015, 2017, 2018), Lamezia (Carchedi et  al. 2017; Carchedi and Cantaro 2016), and Sybaris in Calabria (Corrado 2012, 2013a; Carchedi and Cantaro 2016), as well as in the Ragusa province in Sicily (Castronovo 2015; Cortese and Palidda 2018; Piro and Sanò 2016, 2017; Sciurba 2013; Urzi and Williams 2017).

5  Respatialization of Migrations and Differentiated Ruralities in Times of Crisis…

81

2018); second, the growing irregular employment of refugees and asylum seekers in agriculture (Sub-Saharans but also Tunisians, following the so-called “North Africa emergency”); third, the growing “ethnic fragmentation” of the labour market (Pedreño 2005), due to the coexistence but continuous replacement of Sub-Saharan and North African, Eastern European and more recently Asian labourers. Refugee reception centres play the role of a lung of the labour market – acting as a reserve of the agricultural workforce, in Calabria (Corrado and D’Agostino 2018) and in Sicily (Castronovo 2015; FilieraSporca 2016; D’Angelo 2018) as well as in other areas of the country (i.e. in Apulia, see Ciniero 2015; Perrotta and Sacchetto 2014; MEDU 2018) with shorter circuits  – internal to the region but also inter-­ regional – associated with commuting from reception centres or between different Italian agricultural areas. Official data in 2019 reveal how the employment of foreign workers is largely seasonal and precarious, and characterized by different forms of exploitation.10 This picture shows differentiated ruralities produced by migration dynamics and ethnically constructed relationships in the rural labour market. Agri-food projects alternative to the conventional one have addressed exploitation and labour issues, but again highlighting differences among the actors involved.

5.4  Alternative Agri-Food Projects and New Ruralities Beginning in 2010, alternative agri-food projects have addressed the migrant labour issue in the two regions considered in this study, Calabria and Sicily. They have been promoted by different actors to offset the effects of industrial agri-food chains in terms of value appropriation, labour exploitation and environmental unsustainability. Alternative agri-food networks (ANTs) is a broad term embracing newly differentiated networks of producers, consumers, and other actors that embody alternatives to mainstream agri-food supply chains. Extensive literature from different perspectives has underlined not only their contribution to small rural businesses and processes of rural development (Ploeg et  al. 2000; Renting et  al. 2003), or

 In fact, in Calabria no foreign workers have a permanent contract – all of them are employed seasonally. What is more, only 59.1% of non-EU workers and 60.5% of EU workers are in possession of a regular contract, and only 14.1% of non-EU workers and 19.6% of EU workers see declared all of the working hours/days effectively performed, while the rest see declared on average only 50% of them. As a consequence, 96.8% of non-EU workers and 90.4% of EU workers receive wages lower than those established by local contracts resulting from employers/trade unions negotiations (Gaudio 2019: 325). In Sicily, only 8% of non-EU workers and 5% of EU workers have a permanent contract. Only 72% of non-EU workers and 71% of EU workers have a regular contract in Sicily – and only 13% of non-EU workers and 12% of EU workers see all the working hours/days performed declared. The others see on average declared only 74% of the working hours/days effectively performed. As a consequence, 55% of non-EU workers and 56% of EU workers receive a wage lower than those established by local contracts resulting from employers/trade unions negotiations (Macaluso 2019: 348–349).

10

82

A. Corrado et al.

Fig. 5.1  Study areas in Italy

oppositional activism, but also their transformative capacity (cfr. Constance et al. 2014; Goodman et al. 2012; Morgan et al. 2006; Renting et al. 2012). In Italy, studies on ANTs have addressed, together with the growing consumers’ concern about food origin and quality (Fonte 2013), rural social innovations (Orria and Luise 2017), repeasantization and agroecological transition (Ploeg 2008; Corrado 2013b; Sivini and Corrado 2013), sustainable landscape management (Holloway et  al. 2006), food systems’ relocalization and food sovereignty, and new forms of cooperatives (Fonte and Cucco 2017) as incubated in the solidarity economy networks made up of solidarity purchasing groups involving both consumers and producers (Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale, GASs). Alternative agri-food projects addressing (migrant) labour issues have originally established a new definition of quality food incorporating labour rights, new agri-­ food market spaces based on short chains, new rural social innovations and cooperation forms, new ways of participating in and constructing new rurality according to subjective and collective paths and practices. Sos Rosarno and Contadinazioni are two notable cases to be explored in detail (Fig. 5.1). Sos Rosarno Sos Rosarno is an alternative agri-food project that has developed in the plain of Gioia Tauro since 2011, as the first project to address migrant labourers’ rights together with small farmers’ income problems. The project was launched a year after the violent clashes which occurred in 2010 in Rosarno, the plain’s main agro-­ town (with a population of around 14,800), between African orange pickers and local inhabitants. The clashes occurred in the very early years of the crisis and

5  Respatialization of Migrations and Differentiated Ruralities in Times of Crisis…

83

represented a tangible manifestation of the social tensions generated by the convergence of the broader economic crisis with the longer-term crisis of local agriculture. The plain of Rosarno-Gioia Tauro – specialized in the production of clementines, oranges and other citrus fruits – has since the 1990s attracted growing numbers of migrant farm workers and progressively emerged as a key leg in the seasonal migratory circuit undertaken by African migrant farm workers across Italian agricultural areas to follow the harvests. Over time, migrants from Eastern European countries have generally taken up more qualified jobs in the citrus fruit sector (e.g. in the warehouses and processing plants). In contrast, the bulk of the seasonal workforce employed as “just-in-time” labourers in the harvest phase continues to be provided by African workers (Garrapa 2016). Interestingly, over recent years, the area has witnessed a growing “refugeeization” (Dines and Rigo 2015) of the African component of the migrant agricultural workforce – i.e. an increase in the numbers of asylum seekers and refugees within this segment of the workforce.11 The SOS Rosarno project was conceived and then translated into a formally constituted association as a response from below to the social crisis experienced on the plain of Gioia Tauro. The idea of the project emerged from the encounter between a group of African farm labourers, who had undertaken a process of collective mobilization for their rights, following their expulsion from the plain of Gioia Tauro in the aftermath of the 2010 events; a group of activists of Italian radical social movements mobilizing in solidarity with their struggles; and a group of local, progressive-­ minded farmers. At its outset, SOS Rosarno essentially revolved around an alternative organization of citrus fruit production aimed at enabling farmers to receive a fairer income from the sale of their products and workers to enjoy regular employment, a wage in line with the levels stipulated by the local labour contract, and fairer working conditions than those normally experienced in local agriculture. To be able to achieve its objectives, its promoters engaged in setting up an alternative food network – independent from mainstream retailer-driven chains – based on the establishment of direct links between the producers involved in the project and the burgeoning world of GASs and critical consumers active in numerous Italian Centre-North urban centres (Iocco and Siegmann 2017; Mostaccio 2016; Oliveri 2015). SOS Rosarno began with the involvement of four small- and micro-scale citrus fruit growers, some of which were members of a local organic farmers’ cooperative (I Frutti del Sole), and four African farm workers. A group of four Italian activists started to act as coordinators of the project on a voluntary basis, engaging in the work of weaving the social networks that would support the farming project. In its second year of experimentation, the project was expanded to involve three other small-scale producers and employed six workers, of which only four had a higher degree of continuity. Over time, the progressive growth of the association’s alternative agri-food network has enabled the expansion of the farming project, for the

 As a result of this process, MEDU (2018: 6–7) reports the overwhelming majority of the workers met are in possession of a regular residence permit (more than 90%).

11

84

A. Corrado et al.

production of a larger array of products (i.e. olive oil, and citrus fruit-based jams and juices). Despite annual variations, in 2019 the project involved around fifteen micro-, small- and medium-scale land owners or producers and generates work for six to seven workers per year, to whom it has guaranteed growing levels of employment continuity during the citrus fruit harvesting season. In a major development of the project, in late December 2015, a group of core members of the association – including, among others, the four local activists previously acting as the project’s coordinators and the six African members of the association – set up the social cooperative Mani e Terra (Hands and Land). The latter has in the following years gradually taken over the management of the original agricultural project. Importantly, in 2016, the cooperative also rented out a five hectare-plot of land to undertake its own project of collective agro-ecological farming with the stated twin objectives of generating employment outside the season of citrus fruit production – so ensuring employment all year round – and promoting a sustainable diversification of local agriculture to move in the direction of re-building local food sovereignty by cultivating vegetables and also wheat with traditional varieties for pasta production. What is more, in 2018, the cooperative, in partnership with a local network of social cooperatives (Macramé), engaged in setting up a biodiversity park for educational purposes on a plot of land confiscated from the local mafia. From an economic point of view, while the cooperative experienced initial difficulties that led some of its original promoters to leave, through the continuous expansion of its activities it has over time managed to guarantee growing levels of employment continuity to six of its members throughout the year. Meanwhile, it has opened its ranks to three additional African members who have joined its collective endeavour. At a closer analysis, the cooperative was the expression and embodiment of a wider set of heterogeneous and differentiated “neo-rurals” that can only be scrutinised by an exploration of the life trajectories, practical experience and perspectives of its different constituencies. Its Italian constituency was mainly constituted by activists who had been coordinating the project since 2011, largely on a voluntary basis. These were all united by previous experience of internal migration, often occurring in the pursuit of their university degrees, that had led them to live for a protracted period in Northern and Central Italy’s main towns. Some of them were middle-aged return migrants who had returned to their original rural setting in the late 90s or early 2000s and then pursued their own employment trajectories in different fields – music and social work. Others, relatively younger than the former, had decided to move back to their place of origin only at the offset of the SOS Rosarno project. Some of them were highly politicized and active within radical social movements. Others had a continuous involvement as volunteers in educational and social projects. In either case, they had made a choice to live in the rural setting in ways different from the dominant ones. Only one of them had a relatively longer term experience of farming, having managed and worked his family’s small plot of land since its return in the village in the mid-1990s. Others had no previous farming experience but they had an aspiration to live off agriculture as new peasants. Thus, for some, the cooperative is seen as a way to realise a political aspiration and the choice to be a new peasant within a collective endeavour, for others it is an

5  Respatialization of Migrations and Differentiated Ruralities in Times of Crisis…

85

opportunity to live off the project and the work with an experience of self-­ management chosen as responding to their own aspiration. The migrant workers, coming from Western Africa and on the whole relatively younger than the Italian members, have different residence permits  – either as labour migrants or humanitarian permits – and different biographies. They haven’t had experience in agriculture before working as a farm worker in Rosarno or other areas of Italy. None of them had Rosarno as the target destination of their migration to Italy. In contrast, they had ended up in the area due to a lack of alternative employment opportunities. For all of them, employment in the context of the SOS Rosarno project had signified access to a regular contract and a wage in line with legally stipulated levels, which in turn enabled them to afford decent living conditions and guaranteed access to housing and social security measures (such as seasonal unemployment benefits). In this sense, their participation in the project has enabled a process of partial emancipation from the conditions of exploitation and extreme precarity that remain the norm for African agricultural workers in the area. Yet, for all of them, the inability of the project to guarantee employment continuity in a context of high counter-seasonal under-employment translates into a situation of relative economic stress that implies important sacrifices (cfr. Iocco and Siegmann 2017). Some of the initial African members of SOS Rosarno left the project in the following years and, with the support of the other members of the association, undertook a career as cultural mediator (often working in rural areas) continuing their life and migratory projects – as well as pursuing in other ways the social and political engagement that led them to embrace SOS Rosarno in the first place. The other Africans who entered later, probably less politicized than the others at the beginning, engaged in the experimentation of the collective gardens, then joined the cooperative and played an important role in the further development of the project. It is important to underline that for many of these African members the participation in these farming and political projects was a challenging process – not always a smooth and straightforward one. Most of them obviously developed an interest in the association’s farming project because they saw in it a possibility to earn a decent wage and an opportunity to pursue their own emancipation from the difficult working and living conditions previously experienced. Yet, at least for some of them, the involvement in the association and the cooperative is also motivated by the desire to build a concrete example that more dignified working and living conditions are possible for migrant farm workers. Eventually, they decided to settle down in Rosarno and this choice implied a break with their prior migratory project – initially projected elsewhere. When they started to work on a more constant basis, they gained the possibility to get a work-related residence permit and/or renew it with relatively less anxiety than before. At the same time, they recovered the possibility to travel and visit their families in Africa. However, the greater continuity in employment thanks to the cooperative does not mean an end to precarity for all of its members – be they Italian or African. None of the Africans has had the possibility to seriously think about family reunion; lives remain split and settlement in Rosarno and participation in the project is still substantially temporary – albeit probably seen as a longer term option than before.

86

A. Corrado et al.

Contadinazioni The Contadinazioni project developed in the town of Campobello di Mazara – population 11,700 (2019)  – in Western Sicily (province of Trapani), located in the Belice Valley characterized by the intensive production of wine, olive oil and table olives, with two quality brands Protected Origin Denomination “Nocellare del Belice” (Lo Cascio 2018). The Valley hosts several refugee reception centres and two identification and expulsion centres. The seasonal and casual labour for the olive harvest has been made up of migrants, first of Tunisian origin, then – from the 2000s – Senegalese. These workers have progressively created informal settlements in the town of Campobello di Mazara. The roots of Contadinazioni date back to the autumn of 2013. The project progressively involved a group composed of local citizens, volunteers from a local anti-mafia association, and olive growers. In the following year, with the aim of creating work and income for its members, the group organized olive picking and a collaboration with SOS Rosarno that offered technical and logistic support through its distribution network. In 2015 the association Contadinazioni was formally founded by Senegalese and Ghanaian precarious workers, local growers, neo-rurals and new peasants. Initially it operated mainly by selling table olives produced by three of the members, but also offering waged work in field operations and growing vegetables. In 2016 the rural workers’ cooperative Terra Matta (Mad land) was created, involving eleven workers, between 22 and 45 years old, of which two were from Ghana and one from Senegal, but continuing to receive support by the collective participating in Contadinazioni. The Italian members have high education levels, but just one in agronomy. The cooperative cultivated four synergic gardens, located in the area between Partinico (a town in the metropolitan area of Palermo, 31,786 inhabitants) and Poggioreale (in the province of Trapani, 1477 inhabitants), producing olive oil, dried tomatoes, fresh vegetables (including some typical of Ghana), and honey, applying agroecological techniques and adopting a quality participatory guarantee scheme. Direct selling was organized by providing boxes to consumers in Palermo and Partinico, organizing a shopping corner – also serving the peasants participating in the local Genuino Clandestino12 network (of which Contadinazioni is a co-founder member) – and distributing vegetables, meeting also the demand of the Ghanaian migrant consumers at the Ballarò market in Palermo, or participating in other peasant markets at a national level. In addition, cultural events were promoted. The two major problems suffered by the cooperative have been land and water access. Just one field is owned by a cooperative member (he is a farmer exchanging the grant for use of one plot of land with the cooperative’s support for the distribution of its own production), the others have been granted through a free loan, but are not cultivated and do not have access to water sources. What has been suggested is to cultivate a local variety of tomato that does not demand much water, by saving  Genuino Clandestino is a national alternative agri-food network developed since 2010 as a communication campaign for the free processing of organic, fair, zero-food miles agricultural surplus. See: http://genuinoclandestino.it

12

5  Respatialization of Migrations and Differentiated Ruralities in Times of Crisis…

87

and reproducing its seeds. At the end of the first year the cooperative was able to pay the workers involved in oil, olive and tomato production. However, the lack of control over the means of production (land and water as well as capital) means it is not possible to work out longer-term production plans. As a consequence, progressively, six members have abandoned the cooperative. In 2018 the cooperative still operated but had reduced its economic activities and suffered a decrease in oil and tomato production that season. In 2019, the expectation was that olive production would sustain mutual projects. The group was unable to overcome the economic unsustainability of the project, which also brought to light elements related to the heterogeneity in its class and race composition and differences in the approach to farming and rural life among its members. Indeed, among the project’s promoters we can distinguish four profiles according to their different motivations in engaging in the agricultural project initially and abandoning it later. In the first profile, we can identify young people around the age of 35 (three of them with a family and children), with a high level education, who do not have agricultural origins and who decide to become involved in farming in order to stay and to avoid further emigration – as they returned to their hometown, Campobello di Mazara or Partinico, after a period spent in Northern cities for training or work. They consider themselves to be “new peasants”. In the wake of the stimulus received from the encounter with SOS Rosarno, they realized the possibility to change their lives through agriculture and the socialization that comes with it. In fact, in the agri-food project they saw the possibility of an alternative way of life, finding a solution to a precarious material condition. After having experienced the “fatigue” of precarious labour conditions in Northern urban contexts, they decided to return back in their rural hometown “where living is easier”. Through this motivation, some decided to acquire skills in agriculture initially by working as an olive farm labourer. At the same time, others, promoted the organic conversion of their own small family plots relying on a knowledge exchange with local organic producers. In their subjective experience, anti-racist struggle came to be connected with the construction of the agri-food project as alternative to the industrial long supply chain model that is responsible for exploitative or substandard working conditions in the local agricultural sector. They have to complete their revenue with other off-farm part-time jobs. The second profile is that of the African labourers. Two of the five who were initially involved in the project then engaged in the rural cooperative. Among them, some valued the benefit of being engaged in farming after a period experienced as wage workers in factories sited in cities in the North of Italy; some others, since their arrival in Italy several years earlier without any previous experience in the agricultural sector, had been employed as wage labourers within it. They split their living between Palermo and Campobello di Mazara, Poggioreale or Partinico, when engaged as salaried workers. Through involvement in the project they reframed their role as that of “workers of the land pursuing autonomy”. An exemplary case is that of Moussa (43) who has been in Italy for 8 years and has always worked in the countryside since his arrival. He initiated the cultivation of African vegetables to be distributed in the city of Palermo, before experimenting with it independently but in

88

A. Corrado et al.

parallel to his salaried work in olive or grape production. He had never worked in agriculture before arriving in Italy, and today he knows that this is the way he wants to live, after returning home. The third profile is that of local farmers. Those who decided to participate in the project were motivated by the economic incentive in addressing alternative markets. They have the most stable living condition within the group, with a family, a property and no intention to move elsewhere; their primary focus being to look for strategies to add value to their production. The context in which the project developed meant it was populated mostly by traditional olive growers who would normally be concentrating their efforts to allow a “social ascent” to their children, which in most cases entailed “emancipation from the land”. However, the farmers cooperating with Contadinazioni are interested in the involvement of their highly educated children in the farm through a new cooperative and multifunctional model. Finally, we can differentiate another profile of local youths who define themselves as neo-rurals. The youngest component of the group, these are economically dependent on their families and in a way “undervalue” the economic sustainability of the project, but strongly idealize rural life and back-to-the-land experience, and, with the support of their parents, desire to buy a country farmhouse. They are mostly interested in an “ideological reflection” on agroecology and the new rurality, to develop inside collective movements, also at a national and international levels. They are employed in training projects of environmental education for children and urban gardening activities in Palermo, but resist to the idea of engaging in a concrete project of agri-food production. The different expectations from the collective rural experience generated a dialectic that was reflected in the organization of daily life and work. At the moment in which these different visions did not allow the continuation of programming the production activities, class and race motivations emerged. This heterogeneity did not translate into a consolidated work group, but allowed for experimentation and ongoing training that forged the very idea of autonomy as tied to the land, for both the young returned and the migrants, so they understood the importance of having access to production resources. The first to abandon the project were the neo-rurals and the farmers. The four types of components have different approaches to the rural experience, precisely because they have different expectations and material conditioning. Political or lifestyle motivations are strong for the young people who try to resist in their own land, and for the neo-rurals, but less strong for the African labourers who nonetheless seek a possibility of autonomy through “bonds of solidarity” in opposition to the competitive and exploitative dynamics experienced as temporary and precarious wage workers. On their side, farmers engaged in the project as a diversification strategy contributing to their reproduction. However, the lifestyle or political reasons intertwine with the economic ones. The young returned invested more in the conception of the project and therefore felt the responsibility of the success of their investment; the migrant labourers wished for success in order not to return to work under a typical power dynamic. The “ideological” neo-rurals showed the strongest idealistic motivation, almost disconnecting the project from its economic

5  Respatialization of Migrations and Differentiated Ruralities in Times of Crisis…

89

needs to the point of appearing in contradiction with themselves. In fact, they wished to return to the land but essentialize their motivations. Finally, the components sharing common perspectives and motivations for the reproduction of the alternative agri-food project are the young returned and the migrant labourers; in fact, their very permanence in the local context and their income generation capacity depend on it.

5.5  Conclusion The respatialization of migrations in Italy, following the 2007–2008 economic crisis and coinciding with the so-called refugee/migration crisis, developed new processes of mobility towards rural areas in which new dynamics of territorialization were deployed. These processes have involved both EU and non-EU migrants with different administrative statuses, migration experience, and personal or labour trajectories. Most of them have found their way, especially in agriculture, according to diverse forms of insertion or employment, and models of production following agri-­ food restructuring. Their residential options, as well as their migration into rural areas, have been compelled and were therefore not really a preference. Analysis of secondary data and extensive literature published in recent years shows how internal and international mobilities, especially towards southern regions in Italy, have developed together with a process of rurbanization and agrarization of (foreign) labour migrations. Many refugee and asylum seekers too, especially from Sub-­ Saharan Africa and Asia, settling in rural and peripheral areas due to reception policies, have often been employed in agriculture. These developments have been produced by virtue of new mobility patterns, networks and connections, and in the context of the precarious, temporary and low-paid job opportunities offered by the agricultural sector and rural economy under the restructuring dynamics. As a result, living and working conditions in rural areas have come to be shaped by ethnic/race-­ based relationships. In spite of the growing rates of emigration from Southern Italy in an enduring crisis, the counter-movement or remaining of locals enriches the definition of a new rurality in the light of new motivations and expectations from the involvement in new social and economic activities, especially in agri-food production. In fact, in addition to foreign migrants, internal mobilities on the national scale have involved people who are returning to their contexts of origin, often after a period of emigration for work or study, and are now connecting with rural life and agri-food production in a new way  – by quality cultivation, market differentiation, production diversification and other activities (e.g. education) – to escape from the fatigue of precarious urban living. The construction of alternative agri-food projects that incorporate new labour relations, meanings of food, agroecological land and resource usage, in production-­ consumption short chains and along rural-urban connections, has resulted in original forms of cooperative organization. For neo-rurals the conditions for

90

A. Corrado et al.

experimenting with alternative forms of farming emerge according to the territorialization of their alternative food projects. The territorialization of the projects conditions their development. Localization in a rural-urban fringe facilitates access to city markets or other services. Cooperation with local farmers has supported the transition of these latter towards alternative markets or production models but also the entrance into farming of the neo-rurals. In the cases of SOS Rosarno and Contadinazioni, we have seen how alternative food-projects in regions of Southern Italy, characterized by intensive permanent production (i.e. citrus and olives), rely on short supply chains but over long distances. Cooperation with local farmers may assure access to production resources. The initiation of agroecological gardens is made possible in the rural-urban fringe. The experience and contribution of the different neo-rurals, or those aspiring to be, in the agri-food projects is conditioned by their background, socio-economic condition, administrative status, education, family or personal linkages, and mobility experience and possibility. We have identified three different profiles: the returned, the ideological and the migrants. In view of these considerations, the definition of neo-rurals becomes shaped by new subjectivities, new meanings, new mobilities and new experiences. Not only conflicts, but other aspects of labour-related as well as social and ethnic/race-based inequalities or differences may characterize the relationships between migrants and locals, and even among neo-rurals themselves. In the light of the great plurality of socio-spatial combinations or interactions we can speak about different or differentiated rurality/ruralities. In fact, the case studies presented here illustrate several other elements concurring to the definition of differentiated ruralities, such as access to or control of production resources, forms of mobility or immobility, residency, networking, flexibility, and aspirations of the subjects involved. These elements combined with transforming material conditions have resulted in differentiated neo-­ ruralities. Further analysis will support the understanding of this definition.

References Alkon AH (2012) Black, white, and green: farmers markets, race, and the green economy. The University of Georgia Press, Athens and London Alkon AH, Agyeman J (2011) Cultivating food justice: race. Class, and sustainability. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA/London Alkon AH, McCullen CG (2011) Whiteness and farmers markets: performances, perpetuations … contestations? Antipode 43(4):937–959. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00818.x Amnesty International (2018) I numeri dell’immigrazione, in Italia e nel mondo. https://www. amnesty.it/numeri-immigrazioneagosto-2018/. Accessed 31 Oct 2018 Bock BB, Osti G, Ventura F (2016) Rural migration and new patterns of exclusion and integration in Europe. In: Shucksmith M, Brown DL (eds) International handbook of rural studies. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London/New York, pp 71–84 Busetta A (2019) Aspetti demografici. In: Greco S, Tuminelli G (eds) Migrazioni in Sicilia 2018. Mimesis, Milano, pp 2–33

5  Respatialization of Migrations and Differentiated Ruralities in Times of Crisis…

91

Camarero L, Sampedro R, Oliva J (2012) Foreigners, neighbours, immigrants: translocal mobilities in rural areas in Spain. In: Hedberg C, do Carmo RM (eds) Translocal ruralism. Mobility and connectivity in European rural spaces. Springer, New York/London Camarero L, Sampedro R, Oliva J (2013) Trayectorias ocupacionales y residenciales de los inmigrantes extranjeros en las áreas rurales españolas. Sociología del Trabajo 77:69–91. https://doi. org/10.5209/STRA.60574 Campesi (2011) The Arab spring and the crisis of the European border regime: manufacturing emergency in the Lampedusa crisis. EUI Working Paper, EUI RSCAS; 2011/59; https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/19375. Accessed 21 Sept 2019 Carchedi F, Cantaro G (2016) Gli studi di casi territoriali in Italia. Il lavoro gravemente sfruttato nel lavoro agricolo e nella macellazione delle carni. In: Osservatorio Placido Rizzotto (ed) Agromafie e caporalato. Terzo rapporto. Secondo rapporto. Ediesse, Roma, pp 111–246 Carchedi F, Galati M, Saraceni I (2017) Lavoro indecente. I braccianti stranieri nella piana lametina. Rubbettino, Soveria Mannelli Caruso FS, Corrado A (2015) Migrazioni e lavoro agricolo: un confronto tra Italia e Spagna in tempi di crisi. In: Colucci M, Gallo S (eds) Tempo di cambiare. Rapporto 2015 sulle migrazioni interne in Italia. Donzelli, Roma Castles S (2011) Migration, crisis and the global labour market. Globalizations 8(3):311–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2011.576847 Castronovo AE (2015) Human mobility control and labour market of migrants in Sicily the case study of the Cara of Mineo. Open J Soc Sci 3:174–181. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2015.32023 Cicerchia M, Pallara P (eds) (2009) Gli immigrati nell’agricoltura italiana. INEA, Roma Ciniero A (2015) Crisi economica e lotte autorganizzate. Lavoro, sciopero ed esclusione dei braccianti a Nardò (2011–2015). Sociologia del lavoro 140:189–204. https://doi.org/10.3280/ SL2015-140013 Colloca C, Corrado A (eds) (2013) La globalizzazione delle campagne: Migranti e società rurali nel Sud Italia. Franco Angeli, Milano Constance DH, Renard MC, Rivera-Ferre MG (eds) (2014) Alternative agrifood movements: patterns of convergence and divergence. Emerald, Binkley Corrado A (2011) Clandestini in the Orange towns: migrations and racisms in Calabria’s agriculture. Race Ethnic Multidiscip Glob Contexts 4(2):191–201. https://doi.org/10.2979/ racethmulglocon.4.2.191 Corrado A (2012) Migrazioni e problemi residenziali nelle Piane di Calabria. In: Osti G, Ventura F (eds) Vivere da stranieri in aree fragili: L’immigrazione internazionale nei comuni rurali italiani. Liguori, Napoli, pp 105–118 Corrado A (2013a) Territori circolanti. Migrazioni e agricoltura nella Piana di Sibari. In: Colloca C, Corrado A (eds) La globalizzazione delle campagne. Migrazioni e società rurali nel Sud d’Italia. Franco Angeli, Milano Corrado A (2013b) Alternative food systems and Peri-urban agriculture in Milan, Italy. Habitat y Sociedad 6:65–83. https://revistascientificas.us.es/index.php/HyS/article/download/4297/3741 Corrado A (2017) Migranti per forza o per scelta nelle aree appenniniche. In: Membretti A, Kofler I, Viazzo PP (eds) Per forza o per scelta. L’immigrazione straniera nelle Alpi e negli Appennini Aracne, Roma Corrado A, D’Agostino M. (2016) I migranti nelle aree interne. Il caso della Calabria Agriregionieuropa 12(45). https://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it. Accessed 15 Nov 2019 Corrado A, D’Agostino M (2018) Migrations in multiple crisis. New development patterns for rural and inner areas in Calabria (Italy)? In: Kordel S, Jelen I, Weidinger T (eds) Processes of immigration in rural Europe: the status quo, implications and development strategies. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge, pp 272–296 Corrado A, Osti G (2019) Introduzione. Migrazioni e nested market in aree rurali fragili. Mondi migranti 1 Corrado A, Perrotta D (2012) Migranti che contano. Percorsi di mobilità e confinamenti nell’agricoltura del Sud Italia. Mondi Migranti 3:103–128. https://doi.org/10.3280/ MM2012-003005

92

A. Corrado et al.

Corrado A, de Castro C, Perrotta D (eds) (2016) Migration and agriculture: mobility and change in the Mediterranean area. Routledge, London Corrado A, Caruso F, Lo Cascio M, Nori M, Palumbo L, Triandafyllidou A (2018) Going beyond raising awareness about migrant exploitation in Italian agriculture: why the system works the way it does. Open Society Foundation, European University Institute. https://onion.osfound. net/sites/default/files/is-italian-agriculture-a-pull-factor-for-irregular-migration-20181205. pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2019 Cortese A, Palidda R (2018) Concorrenza imperfetta. Strategie competitive di migranti tunisini e rumeni nell’agricoltura intensiva del ragusano. Mondi Migranti 1:49–66. https://doi. org/10.3280/MM2018-001003 CREA (2017) Annuario dell’agricoltura italiana. CREA, Roma CREA (2019) Il contributo dei lavoratori stranieri all’agricoltura italiana. CREA, Roma D’Agostino M (2013) Governance dei rifugiati e sviluppo locale in Calabria. In: Colloca C, Corrado A (eds) La globalizzazione delle campagne. Migranti e società rurali nel Sud Italia. Franco Angeli, Milano, pp 170–192 D’Angelo A (2018) Italy: the ‘illegality factory’? Theory and practice of refugees’ reception in Sicily. J Ethn Migr Stud 45(12):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2018.1468361 De Genova N (2016) The “crisis” of the European border regime: towards a Marxist theory of borders. International Socialism 150, http://isj.org.uk/the-crisis-of-the-european-border-regimetowards-a-marxist-theory-of-borders/. Accessed 21 Sept 2019 Dines N, Rigo E (2015) Postcolonial citizenships and the ‘refugeeization’ of the workforce: migrant agricultural labor in the Italian Mezzogiorno. In: Ponzanesi S, Colpani G (eds) Postcolonial transitions in Europe: contexts, practices and politics. Rowman & Littlefield International, New York, pp 151–172 FilieraSporca (2016) La raccolta dei rifugiati Trasparenza di filiera e responsabilità sociale delle aziende. Secondo Rapporto. http://www.filierasporca.org/2016/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/ filierasporca_2016.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2019 Fonte M (2013) Food consumption as social practice: solidarity purchasing groups in Rome. Italy J Rural Stud 32:230–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.07.003 Fonte M, Cucco I (2017) Cooperatives and alternative food networks in Italy. The long road towards a social economy in agriculture. J Rural Stud 53:291–302 Fullin G, Reyneri E (2013) Introduzione. Gli immigrati in un mercato del lavoro in crisi: il caso italiano in prospettiva comparata. Mondi Migranti 1:21–34. https://doi.org/10.3280/ MM2013-001002 Garrapa AM (2016) The citrus fruit crisis: value chains and ‘just in time’ migrants in Rosarno (Italy) and Valencia (Spain). In: Corrado A, de Castro C, Perrotta D (eds) Migration and agriculture: mobility and change in the Mediterranean area. Routledge, London, pp 135–151 Gaudio F (2019) Calabria. In: CREA. Il contributo dei lavoratori stranieri all’agricoltura italiana. CREA, Rome, pp. 189–196 Gertel J, Sippel SR (2014) Seasonal workers in Mediterranean agriculture. The social costs of eating fresh. Routledge, London Gkartzios M (2013) ‘Leaving Athens’: narratives of counterurbanisation in times of crisis. J Rural Stud 32:158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.06.003 Goodman D, DuPuis EM, Goodman M (2012) Alternative food networks: knowledge, practice, and politics. Routledge, London Halfacree K (2007) Back-to-the-land in the twenty-first century – making connections with rurality. Tijdschr Econ Soc Geogr 98(1):3–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2007.00371.x Halfacree K (2008) To revitalise Counterurbanisation research? Recognising an international and fuller picture. Popul Space Place 14:479–495. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.501 Halfacree K (2012) Diverse ruralities in the 21st century: from effacement to (re-) invention. In: International handbook of rural demography. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 387–400 Holloway L, Cox R, Venn L, Kneafsey M, Dowler E, Tuomainen H (2006) Managing sustainable farmed landscape through ‘alternative’food networks: a case study from Italy. Geogr J 172(3):219–229

5  Respatialization of Migrations and Differentiated Ruralities in Times of Crisis…

93

IDOS (2017) Dossier statistico immigrazione 2017. Edizioni IDOS, Roma Iocco G, Siegmann KA (2017) A worker-driven way out of the crisis in Mediterranean agriculture. Global Labour Column (289. http://column.global-labour-university.org/2017/09/a-workerdriven-way-out-of-crisis-in.html. Accessed 11Oct 2019 Iocco G, Lo Cascio M, Perrotta D (2019) Lavoro migrante, mercati nidificati e sviluppo rurale nelle aree ad agricoltura intensiva del Sud Italia: due esperienze in Calabria e Sicilia. Mondi Migranti 1:37–51. https://doi.org/10.3280/MM2019-001003 ISMEA, SVIMEZ (2016) Rapporto sull’agricoltura del Mezzogiorno. ISMEA, SVIMEZ, Roma ISTAT (2008) Bilancio demografico nazionale: Anno 2007. https://www4.istat.it/it/archivio/1417. Accessed 11 Oct 2019 ISTAT (2018) Cittadini non comunitari: Presenza, nuovi ingressi e acquisizioni di cittadinanza. Anni 2017–2018. https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/223598. Accessed 11 Oct 2019 ISTAT (2019a), Bilancio demografico nazionale: Anno 2018. https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/231884 ISTAT (2019b) Popolazione residente  – bilancio: Calabria. http://dati.istat.it/. Accessed 11 Oct 2019 ISTAT (2019c) Popolazione residente – bilancio: Sicilia. http://dati.istat.it/. Accessed 11 Oct 2019 Jentsch B, Simard M (eds) (2009) International migration and rural areas, cross-national comparative perspectives. Ashgate, Surrey Kasimis C, Papadopoulos AG (2005) The multifunctional role of migrants in the Greek countryside: implications for the rural economy and society. J Ethn Migr Stud 31(1):99–127. https:// doi.org/10.1080/1369183042000305708 Kasimis C, Papadopoulos A (2013) Rural transformations and family farming in contemporary Greece. In: Ortiz-Miranda D, Moragues-Faus A, Arnalte-Alegre E (eds) Agriculture in Mediterranean Europe: between old and new paradigms. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 263–293 Kasimis C, Papadopoulos AG, Pappas C (2010) Gaining from rural migrants: migrant employment strategies and socioeconomic implications for rural labour markets. Sociol Rural 50(3):258–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2010.00515.x Kay C (2008) Reflections on Latin American rural studies in the neoliberal globalization period: a new rurality? Dev Chang 39(6):915–943. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2008.00518.x Koehler J, Laczko F, Aghazarm C, Schad J (2010) Migration and the economic crisis in the European Union: implications for policy. International Organization for Migration, Brussels Lafleur JM, Stanek M (2017) EU migration and the economic crisis: concepts and issues. In: Lafleur JM, Stanek M (eds) Old routes, new migrants: lessons from the South-North Migration of EU Citizens in Times of Crisis. Springer Lo Cascio M (2018) Un prodotto Dop in terra di mafia. Le olive da tavola Nocellara in Sicilia. Meridiana 93:91–111 Macaluso D (2019) Sicilia. In: CREA, Il contributo dei lavoratori stranieri all’agricoltura italiana. CREA, Roma Mares TM, Alkon AH (2011) Mapping the food movement. Addressing inequality and neoliberalism. Environ Soc 2(1):68–86. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2011.020105 McAreavey R (2012) Resistance or resilience? Tracking the pathway of recent arrivals to a ‘new’ rural destination. Sociol Rural 52(4):488–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2012.00573.x McAreavey R (2016) Understanding the association between rural ethnicity and inequalities. In: Shucksmith M, Brown DL (eds) Routledge international handbook of rural studies. Routledge, London MEDU (2015) Terraingiusta. Rapporto sulle condizioni di vita e di lavoro dei braccianti stranieri in agricoltura. www.mediciperidirittiumani.org/pdf/Terraingiusta.pdf. Accessed 11 Oct 2019 Medici per i diritti umani (MEDU) (2017) Piana di Gioia Tauro: Dignità e diritti violati nel ghetto più grande d’Italia. Aprile 2017. Medici per i diritti umani, Rome. https://www.mediciperidirittiumani.org/pdf/RAPPORTO_MEDU_GIOIA_TAURO_APRILE_2017.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct July 2018

94

A. Corrado et al.

MEDU (2018) I dannati della terra. rapporto sulle condizioni di vita e di lavoro dei braccianti stranieri nella piana di Gioia Tauro. https://mediciperidirittiumani.org/medu/wp-content/ uploads/2018/05/i_dannati_della_terra_2018_web.pdf. Accessed 11 Oct 2019 Membretti A, Kofler I, Viazzo PP (eds) (2017) Per forza o per scelta. L’immigrazione straniera nelle Alpi e negli Appennini Aracne, Roma Mezzadra S, Neilson B (2013) Border as method, or the multiplication of labor. Duke University Press, Durham Morgan K, Marsden T, Murdock J (2006) Worlds of food: place, power, and provenance in the food chain. Oxford University Press, Oxford Mostaccio F (2016) L’economia solidale come autodifesa della società. L’esperienza di Rosarno. Sociologia del lavoro 142:164–176. https://doi.org/10.3280/SL2016-142010 MSF (2016) Fuori campo. Richiedenti asilo e rifugiati in Italia: insediamenti informali e marginalità sociale. https://fuoricampo.medicisenzafrontiere.it/Fuoricampo.pdf. Accessed 11 Oct 2019 MSF (2018) Fuori campo. Insediamenti informali, marginalità sociale, ostacoli all’accesso alle cure e ai beni essenziali per migranti e rifugiati. Secondo rapporto. Available at: https://fuoricampo.medicisenzafrontiere.it/ Fuoricampo2018.pdf. Accessed 11 Oct 2019 Oliveri F (2015) A network of resistances against a multiple crisis. SOS Rosarno and the experimentation of socio-economic alternative models. Partecipazione e Conflitto 8(2):504–529. https://doi.org/10.1285/i20356609v8i2p504 Orria B, Luise V (2017) Innovation in rural development: “neo-rural” farmers branding local quality of food and territory. Ital J Plann Pract 7(1):125–153 Osti G, Ventura F (2012) Vivere da stranieri in aree fragili. L’immigrazione Internazionale nei Comuni Rurali Italiani. Liguori, Napoli Padoan V (2011) Il caso della Piana di Gioia Tauro (RC). In: Aa.Vv (eds) Immigrazione, sfruttamento e conflitto sociale. Una mappatura delle aree a rischio e quattro studi di caso territoriali. IRES, Rapporto di Ricerca n. 1 Palumbo L, Sciurba A (2015) Vulnerability to forced labour and trafficking: the case of Romanian women in the agricultural sector in Sicily. Anti Trafficking Rev 5:89–108 Palumbo L, Sciurba A (2018) The vulnerability to exploitation of women migrant workers in agriculture in the EU: the need for a human rights and gender based approach, European Parliament. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/604966/IPOL_ STU%282018%29604966_EN.pdf. Accessed 11 Oct 2019 Papadopoulos AG, Fratsea LM, Karanikolas P, Zografakis S (2019) Reassembling the rural: socio-­ economic dynamics, inequalities and resilience in crisis-stricken rural Greece. Sociol Rural 59(3):474–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12252 Pedreño A (2005) Sociedades etnofragmentadas. In: Pedreño A, Hérnández M (eds) La condición inmigrante. Exploraciones e investigaciones desde la Región de Murcia. Ediciones de la Universidad de Murcia, Murcia Perrotta D, Sacchetto D (2014) Migrant farmworkers in southern Italy: ghettoes, caporalato and collective action. Workers World 1(5): 75–98. https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=wotw. Accessed 11 Oct 2019 Piro V, Sanò G (2016) Entering the ‘plastic factories’: conflicts and competition in Sicilian greenhouses and packinghouses. In: Corrado A, de Castro C, Perrotta D (eds) Migration and agriculture: mobility and change in the Mediterranean area. Routledge, London, pp 317–332 Piro V, Sanò G (2017) Abitare (ne) i luoghi di lavoro: il caso dei braccianti rumeni nelle serre della provincia di Ragusa. Sociologia del lavoro 146:40–55. https://doi.org/10.3280/SL2017-146003 Pugliese E (2012) Il lavoro agricolo immigrato nel Mezzogiorno e il caso di Rosarno. Mondi Migranti 3:7–28 Pugliese E (2018) Quelli che se ne vanno La nuova emigrazione italiana. Il Mulino, Bologna Renting H, Marsden TK, Banks J (2003) Understanding alternative food networks: exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environ Plan A 35:393–411. https://doi. org/10.1068/a3510

5  Respatialization of Migrations and Differentiated Ruralities in Times of Crisis…

95

Renting H, Schermer M, Rossi A (2012) Building food democracy: exploring civic food networks and newly emerging forms of food citizenship. Int J Soc Agric Food 19(3):289–307 Rivera EM., Mormont M (2007) Neo-rurality and the different meanings of the countryside. In: Bessière C et al (eds) Les mondes ruraux à l’épreuve des sciences sociales. INRA, pp 33–45 Roos C, Zaun N (2016) The global economic crisis as a critical juncture? The crisis’s impact on migration movements and policies in Europe and the U.S. J Ethn Migr Stud 42(10):1579–1589. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2016.1162351 Sacchetto D, Vianello FA (2013) Crisi economica e migranti: il ritorno del lavoratore povero. Mondi Migranti 1:79–99. https://doi.org/10.3280/MM2013-001005 Sampedro GR, Camarero Rioja L (2016) Inmigrantes, estrategias familiares y arraigo: las lecciones de la crisis en las áreas rurales. Migraciones 40:3–31. mig.i40y2016.008 Sciurba A (2013) Effetto serra. Le donne rumene nelle campagne del ragusano. L’Altro Diritto. http://www.altrodiritto.unifi.it/ricerche/migranti/ragusa.htm Silva L, Figuereido (eds) (2013) Shaping rural areas in Europe. Springer, New York/London Sivini S, Corrado A (eds) (2013) Cibo locale: percorsi innovativi nelle pratiche di produzione e consumo alimentare. Liguori, Napoli SVIMEZ (2015) Rapporto sull’economia del Mezzogiorno. SVIMEZ, Roma SVIMEZ (2016) Rapporto sull’economia del Mezzogiorno. SVIMEZ, Roma SVIMEZ (2018) Rapporto sull’economia del Mezzogiorno. SVIMEZ, Roma SVIMEZ (2019) Rapporto sull’economia del Mezzogiorno. SVIMEZ, Roma Tilly C (2011) The impact of the economic crisis on international migration: a review. Work Employ Soc 25(4):675–692 Urzi D, Williams C (2017) Beyond post-national citizenship: an evaluation of the experiences of Tunisian and Romanian migrants working in the agricultural sector in Sicily. Citizsh Stud 21(1):136–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2016.1252716 van der Ploeg JD (2008) The new peasantries: struggles for autonomy and sustainability in an era of empire and globalization. Routledge, Abingdon Van der Ploeg JD, Renting H, Brunori G et al (2000) Rural development: from practices and policies towards theory. Sociol Rural 40:391–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00156 Wilbur A (2013a) Growing a radical ruralism: back-to-the-land as practice and ideal. Geogr Compass 7(2):149–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12023 Wilbur A (2013b) Cultivating Back-to-the-landers: networks of knowledge in rural Northern Italy. Sociol Rural 54(2):167–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12024 Alessandra Corrado  is Associate Professor in Sociology of Environment and Territory at the Department of Political and Social Sciences (Study Center for Rural Development) of the University of Calabria (Italy). Her research activity revolves around different topics: agro- ecological transition, management of natural resources, sustainable and alternative agri-food systems, food sovereignty, international migrations, rural migrations, migrant labour in agriculture. Giulio Iocco  is a PhD student at the Department of Political and Social Sciences (Study Center for Rural Development) of the University of Calabria (Italy). His PhD research investigates the political economy of the greening of horticulture and its implications for agricultural workers in Italy and Tunisia. His research interests include agrarian and rural change in the Mediterranean region, rural workers’ conditions and resistances, and grassroots socio-ecological alternatives. Martina Lo Cascio  is research fellow at the University of Bergamo (Italy). She holds a PhD in Social and Psychological Sciences (University of Palermo). Her researches focus on migrant labour in intensive agricultural production in Southern Italy, private standards and new food representations.

Chapter 6

Return to the Land in Times of Crisis: Experiences, Policies and Narratives in an Inner Periphery of Southern Italy Carlotta Ebbreo

6.1  Introduction This study will consider the representation and narration surrounding the phrase “return to the land”, used specifically in the Italian context in the wake of the 2008 socio-economic crisis. Recent years have witnessed the rise of a discourse regarding the process of return to the land. The narrative has emerged in a complex context, beginning with a shift towards agrarian modernization characterized by dynamics such as rural exodus, agrarian deactivation and a depeasantization process (ISTAT 2012; Pazzagli and Bonini 2017). An important contextual element to highlight is that in Italy, the proportion of youth among the total number of farmers was 2.1% in 2017. The low figure places Italy among the last seven countries – the lowest quarter – in Europe (EU-28) on the issue (EC 2017). The narrative must also be considered within the wider debate on the sustainability of the agri-food system in relation to different production models. Another issue to take into account is that recent socio-economic crisis has strongly impacted the youth from Southern Italy. Since the 2008 socio-economic crisis, youth (18–35) unemployment has grown steadily at the national level, from 14.1% in 2007 to 30% in 2017. In the southern part of the country, during those same years the increase was from 24.8% to 41.8% (ISTAT). Particularly, it is argued that a particular tangent of the return to the land discourse has emerged in the aftermath of the 2008 socio-economic crisis, characterizing “rural as an opportunity in time of crisis”. It is therefore important to accentuate the specific subjects and connotations of this representation, such as those given by policy makers in rural development at different levels and by the new entrants into farming. In addition, it is important to consider alternative thoughts with regard to the rural development paradigm. By focusing on young new entrants to farming, C. Ebbreo (*) Centre for Rural Development Studies– Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Calabria, Rende, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 F. N. Döner et al. (eds.), Crisis and Post-Crisis in Rural Territories, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50581-3_6

97

98

C. Ebbreo

this study stresses that the opportunity-in-crisis phenomenon requires a deeper understanding of structural dynamics in order to represent a truly renewed opportunity for these subjects in the rural context and for rural territories, generally speaking. In this study, the crisis is considered as a tool of space production. We use the expression ‘the production of Space’ according to Stewart’s reading of the philosopher Lefevbre (1974): “The notion of production is important to Lefebvre because it subsumes not only socioeconomic production—the production of things in space—but also the reproduction of biological and social relations of production— the activities that produce social spaces” (Stewart 1992: 610). According to Stewart (1992), there are three interconnected moments constituting the dialectic between representation and practices: spatial practices, or people’s use, generation and perception of the space; the representation of the space, or the conception, measurement and description of the space; and finally, the space of representation, which is the living space of everyday life. The second and third moments show the tension between the image given by the institutional apparatus and that of “resistance” built through grassroots forms of space appropriation (Stewart 1992: 610). According to this theoretical point of view, it is compelling to consider perceptions of this return to the land and the accompanying practices as a space of rural representation.1 Moreover, since land is the basic means of production and reproduction for those who are meant to return, it is important to highlight how this representation acts upon the policies of land governance. The context of the study is the southern European country of Italy. The research also draws information from a case study based in a rural territory of Sicily, also in southern Italy. This study employs several methods, including literature review, and the study of national and regional land governance policies. The analyses herein are also based on participant observation undertaken over the course of several moments between 2015 and 2018, always in the context of the case study, as well as several interviews with local stakeholders, such as local policy makers, local administrators and local farmers.2 Moreover, interviews were also directed to “new entrants into farming”.3 The first part of this text will focus on the relationship between agrarian

1  Lefevbre’s description of the transformation of rural space is a methodological approach used in the counter-urbanization studies by Halfacree (2006). 2  The work is based on a total of eighteen interviews using semi-structured and unstructured interviewing methods. The names of the people interviewed in this article have been changed for questions of privacy. Most of these interviews have been hold in the period between January and April 2018. The total interviews are 12 to new entrants into farming and 5 to local administrations stakeholders. Moreover, during observation many information interviews have been taken. All new entrants into farming entered farming from no more than 10 years when they were younger than 35. They all practice sustainable farming models. 3  According to the EIP-AGRI (2016), a new entrant into farming is “a natural person, group of people or legal entity that has established a new agricultural holding or farming business in their own name(s) within the past five years. This natural person, group of people or legal entity should be actively farming (i.e. producing agricultural products for sale) and either establishing a new agricultural holding or returning to a family-held holding after a minimum of 10 years of off-farm employment” (EIP-AGRI 2016: 7–9).

6  Return to the Land in Times of Crisis: Experiences, Policies and Narratives in…

99

modernization and marginalization. It considers perspectives from critical agrarian change as well as those from political ecology. In the same section the current economic crisis is linked to a broader crisis present across rural inner peripheries through the concept of peripheralization. As it will be further explained later in the text, the inner periphery is a category recently conceived by researchers and that has been translated into policy. The term describes areas without access to basic services and experiencing depopulation processes; many of them in Italy are mountain regions (UVAL 2014). Here, the text discusses how mountain territories are conceived in the EU and Italy, respectively. It also introduces the concept of triple erosion as a synthetic concept for the long term and interconnected processes of the crisis, which serve to design these kinds of territories. In the following sections, the profile of new entrants into farming is introduced as one of the figures that embody a return to the land. More specifically, the paragraph analyzes how new entrants practicing specific farming models are considered as possible responses to a long-­ term crisis in rural territories. In addition, the entrance into farming is contextualized within divisive national, regional and European landscapes of agrarian deactivation, land concentration and difficulties for new farmers with regards to access to land and other resources. This study will continue with an analysis of recent policy making in Italy concerning land governance, questioning to what extent policies are addressing the difficulties faced by the new entrants into farming. Before the final considerations, the final part of the text will be dedicated to the case study, looking at a specific instance where a return to the land is happening in the inner peripheries.

6.2  How Modernization Has Constructed the Margins While we are aiming to analyze the processes of transformations of the rural areas toward marginality, we are aware that it is a complex process driven by multiple factors. In this chapter we are focusing on the aspects related to agriculture and agrarian changes and leaving to other analysis the complex net of historical and socio-economic transformation that also contributed to this process. The agrarian modernization project got its first experiences in various rural spaces at the end of the WWII, and progressively expanded on a global scale. It has been a process of converting peasant agriculture into a business project of commodity production for the global markets. It has been based on a technical transformation of food production models and a political transformation of economic and material chains of production. The insertion of external inputs into productive processes, by way of mechanization, has been one of the major steps in this process (Servolin 1972). From a theoretical point of view, the capitalist model of production – specialized, delocalized and based on external inputs such as petroleum-based inputs – comes in contrast to the peasant model of production, which is essentially based on the use of local resources and a model of co-production with nature that facilitates long-term reproduction of the material bases on which its existence depends (Van der Ploeg

100

C. Ebbreo

2008, 2013; Toledo 1992, 2017). According to scholars and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), small-scale multifunctional models of agriculture are the most inclined to engage dynamics of local sustainable development (Renting and Rossing 2009). Scholars argue that small-scale peasant agriculture follows a model that provides the highest opportunities to create local development dynamics. This is due to the multifunctional character of such models, as well as their tendency to create localized and consistent resources fluxes because they are highly adaptable to care for and generate common goods and environmental services (Van Der Ploeg 2008, 2013, 2016). Certainly, models of production contain many shades and varieties, but the introduction of external inputs into agriculture, as well as the progressive globalization of food system chains, has radically transformed the rationality of the agricultural practice. Considering that such a practice is an emblematic pillar of life reproduction, the impacts of this transformation are long-term and multidimensional. The agricultural historian Bevilacqua (2008) highlighted how the new capitalist model of farming, embodied by modernization, meant approaching agriculture for the first time as an industry like any other. Under the paradigm of neoliberal agricultural development, rural areas have been integrated into the global system through an increasing trend towards specialization in the production of raw materials. The peripheralization of rural populations has led the value of food production to become increasingly displaced from the production component of the food value chain. Additionally, it has affected immaterial parts of this chain as well, such as distribution, retail, marketing, and finance (Van Der Ploeg 2008). In addition to the economic elements contained within these peripheralization dynamics, other important aspects of this process have emerged. For instance, epistemic peripheralization refers to a moment where the cultural, economic, and symbolic value of local human-nature relations prior to modernization have been gradually expropriated, marginalized, and disrespected. Parascandolo (2016) states that in the name of development and growth, only activities involving sales, purchases and remunerated work have been socially visualized; this was the case for agriculture. Such a view excluded the valorization of activities that entailed the reproduction of the social and ecological landscapes that peasant agriculture has long established (Parascandolo 2016: 1–2). Magnaghi (2006) argues that peripheralization has not only constituted ecosystem damage within the territories, but it has also underlain the deterioration of the nets that sustained social relations. In fact, processes of integration and the specialization of local agriculture for the market are necessary in order to implement the capitalist agriculture model that led to territories being seen not as a whole but as a “sum of personal interests in a society of consumers” (Magnaghi 2006: 8). Therefore, peripheralization has resulted in one of the neoliberal-age processes of attributing meaning to rural territories. In the 1950s, Italian agrarian economists started designing rural space through the lenses of modernization. At that time, Rossi Doria (1952) developed a toponymy of agrarian areas through a famous metaphor: Italy was la polpa e l’osso – literally meat and bones  – as the title of his book described. According to De Benedictis (2002, 2015) such terminology constituted the terms of both descriptive and normative processes. The meat referred to plains and irrigated areas that the agrarian

6  Return to the Land in Times of Crisis: Experiences, Policies and Narratives in…

101

economist considered the most appropriate places for the “modern” model of agriculture. The rest was bones: hills, mountains and unirrigated areas such as those present in most southern Italian rural territories. It is important to note that 23% of total rural labour worked in the mountains in 1982.4 According to Rossi Doria’s definition, such areas were considered l’osso duro (the tough bone), or agrarian peripheries, characterized by misery and depopulation. Even in the Italian constitution of 1946, mountains were labeled as disadvantaged and deprived areas (Rossi Doria 1952; Bevilacqua 2002). This representation of the mountains as a place of misery and obstacles spurred massive emigration processes. To an extent, it was true that mountains were not “modernizable”. With steep slopes and sharply uneven topography, mechanization was not an affordable strategy. As Onida (2016) and Strijker (2005) argue, the commodification of agriculture with related processes such as soil use intensification, mechanization and specialization, creates the basis by which marginal lands are created. In fact, some territories, due to the intrinsic obstacles to modernizing and rendering them rentable, started to be classified as the margins (Onida 2016; Strijker 2005). At the same time, this toponymic division based on a productivistic approach did not take into account ecological interdependencies – all the processes that impact the ecosystem management of the integrated ecological systems of mountains, hills, and plains. As Bevilacqua (2012) underlines, the mountains that distinguish the Southern inner peripheries, the Apennines, display different ecologies than other mountain ranges. Specifically, they have a strong interdependent ecological relationship with the adjacent valleys and coasts. According to scholars, it is in the mountains that the relationship between agrarian deactivation and natural disasters is most pronounced (Macdonalda et al. 2000). The Apennine is strongly anthropized and less biodiverse than other mountain forest areas. Consequently, the Appenine range is more dependent on human intervention than other mountain ecosystems. The abandonment of traditional agriculture activities in the mountains implies abandoning all the activities related to natural resources and ecosystem governance on which both valley and mountain ecological systems have been based (Bevilacqua 2012). According to Carrosio and Osti (2017), the mountain landscape is defined by abandonment and marginality. This latter term refers to territorial inequality driven by the capitalist model of development. In the policy recommendations contained in the European research project Shrinking rural region in Europe, researchers explain the ‘shrinking’ phenomenon that some rural regions in Europe are undergoing, detailing a negative cycle of depopulation and socio-economic crisis. According to this study, the shrinking phenomenon began with agrarian modernization and the transformation of production models from those that were labour intensive to those that are capital intensive. According to this research, at the beginning of the general implementation of the modernization project in Europe, almost 70% of rural regions were experiencing depopulation and agrarian exodus. Later, around the year 2000, these processes became especially

4  From the reception of the 84/167/CEE each municipality settled at more of 600 mt. could be considered as in a mountain area (De Benedictis 2002).

102

C. Ebbreo

concentrated in mountain areas (EU 2017). Today, mountains and hills are a platform for soil erosion and floods. The reduction of livelihood density in these mountains and a declining human-nature relationship reduces the ability of ecosystems to offer their services. Consequently, traditional balances falter. The tripartite concept of triple erosion might define these territories. It is described as follows: Demographic erosion, which consists in a reduction in the number of inhabitants as well as in the normalization of a population pyramid design that reveals a strong aging dynamic. Demographic erosion implies a natural reduction of the number of people participating in the governance of mountains through activities such as peasant farming, forestry and collection activities. Through the decline of ecosystem management practices that such activities entail, a process of ecosystem erosion emerges. At the same time, these activities constitute the pillars of local fluxes and networks of socio-economic relations. The erosion of socio-economic exchange flows diminishes the viability of living in these spaces while engaged in natural and endogenous resource-based activities. As such, what might metaphorically be called the triangle of erosion is closed, resulting in the design of a long-term structural crisis process for these territories.

6.3  Marginal Lands in Policy Frameworks Peripheralization, marginalization and erosion are three concepts of central importance when the neoliberal process of space building in the Mediterranean mountains is described. In the EU policy framework referring the mountains, these concepts are superposed. According to Onida (2016), the European paradigm of development has been focused on valley areas for decades. However, both Onida (2016) and Ferlaino (2015) analyze the shifting representations of mountain territories in European policy. At the beginning of these policies, they describe how such areas were considered as territories marked by handicaps and lacking structural conditions that would enable them “to develop” as others had. Beginning with the Roma Treaty, the mountains as a geographical toponomy were referred to as a specific territory that warranted specific policies. With the EU directive for Less Favoured Areas (75/268/ CEE) in 1975, mountains were considered among those territories that required special subsidies for productivity. There is a significant presence of these areas in Mediterranean Europe. The European Commission (EC 1257/1999) tried to address the high risk of agrarian and rural exodus in these areas. In the same policies, mountains were referred to as areas with important cultural and ecological heritage. In the CAP, specific policies were progressively implemented through direct subsidies, for example, and later through quality certification programmes. It is also important to consider the Natura 2000 policy strategy, which describes mountains as important territories to preserve for their richness in biodiversity. The United Nations has also underlined the importance of mountains as the sources of biodiversity, water and wood resources in its Agenda 21 (Onida 2016; Ferlaino 2015). In Italy, beginning in

6  Return to the Land in Times of Crisis: Experiences, Policies and Narratives in…

103

2013, the European Union Cohesion Policy introduced an experimental programme for inner peripheries that has been put into practice since then: National Strategy for Inner Peripheries. (Lucatelli et al. 2013; UVAL 2014; Mantino and De Fano 2015; Lucatelli 2016). As the geographer Ferlaino (2015) shows a specific feature of Italy as compared with other European countries is that the category of inner periphery as a geophysical category corresponds to a social-economic category. They are located in the inner part of the country and almost all of these inner peripheries are mountainous areas,5 referred to as the appennino interiore (interior Apennine). Corpus and Noguera (2016) have documented the origins of the concept of inner periphery. The term “periphery” comes from the world systems theory; within this analytical framework, it is used to identify the border and/or edge of a system. The concept has recently been used in EU policy frame and researchers in relation to toponimization as well as in relation to a development policy referring to these areas which is the experimental policy for inner peripheries (See for example result reports for European Research Programme ESPON like GEOSPECS). The following two approaches have served to design these areas: first, the use of the term periphery referring to abandonment and difficulty of access and second, periphery referring to a lack of basic services for citizens. Key variables that identify such areas are dynamics such as depopulation, aging, unemployment, and the extended time required to reach basic services such as health care, education, etc. (Corpus and Noguera 2016). Investigating the representation of inner peripheries in policy frameworks shows us that they are presented in opposition to urbanity. On the one hand, inner peripheries are described as the areas rich in natural as well as immaterial resources. On the other hand, they are the areas in tragic conditions concerning the lack of basic services, declining employment opportunities, and dynamics of depopulation. As Del Plata (2018) underlined in his opening speech at the Conference of the National Academy of Italian Geographers, “the history of depopulation in this country can be traced back to the mountains.” It is a demographic process that started in 1951 and has not ended; during the period from 1961–1971, the phenomenon also expanded to the hills (Del Plata 2018). Especially in the southern areas, most of the traditional farming activities were abandoned as a result of migration to cities, coasts, and more industrialized areas. Agrarian history shows us that the farming model is not neutral when in concerns local development dynamics. In a recent EU parliament resolution [April 27, 2017 (2016/2141(INI)] agrarian deactivation was recognised as one of the main challenges facing European rural development. Current EU policy is not enough to prevent rural and agrarian exodus in these areas.

5  Mountains represent almost the 50% of the national area while almost half of the total number of municipalities are situated in these areas of low population density characterized by small villages (Fondazione Montagne Italia 2015).

104

C. Ebbreo

6.4  A Return to the Land in the Mountains Return to the land is a concept that has recently grown popular in the Italian public arena, though a number of diverse and at times divergent meanings have been attributed to the term. It often refers to both new practices and new profiles in rural territories. According to geographers and rural sociologists such as Mormont (1990), Camarero (1993), Rivera (2007), Halfacree (2001, 2007), among others, the concept found its historical origins in the back-to-the-land movement of the 1960’s and 1970’s. It began in the United States and then spread across Europe. It consisted of voluntary migration motivated by lifestyle choices and as a symbolic pushback against modernity. These were the new ruralities and, following such an approach focused on life trajectories, these actors could be considered the protagonists of a counter-urbanization dynamic (Wilbur 2013). Osti (2013) clarifies that in the Italian context a ‘return to the land’ has embodied several diversified processes over the last decade, which included not only those who return to the land but also the land itself. For example, there are young people who have begun working in agriculture but there is also a renewed valorisation of the land through a recent phenomenon of investment for reasons including eco-tourism and social farming. Following the land market, the enormous change that agrarian land ownership has undergone becomes visible (Osti 2013). As we can read Vitale (2013)‘s study concerning southern Italy, recent years have witnessed a rising number of people changing their life trajectory to start agricultural projects, particularly those engaging in sustainable models of food production. This research considers the phenomenon also in its implication on local development dynamics. This is, for example, the approach taken by the Italian Terratorialist Society, Società dei territorialisti, which has contributed to the Italian debate on return to the land.6 In the Italian scientific literature, we find data concerning the impacts of return to the land in several fields of development: GDP generation, ecosystem services production as well as the production of public goods (Brunori et  al. 2010; Cersosimo 2012; Carrosio 2013; Canale and Ceriani 2013; Battaglini and Corrado 2014). In the same theoretical perspective, there are studies concerning new inhabitants of mountain rural areas, especially those referring to the Alpine context (Battaglini and Corrado 2014; Corrado et al. 2014). Since these subjects prefer an agrarian lifestyle (Wilbur 2013), the concept of return to the land seems to act as a counter-dynamic to agrarian and rural exoduses from marginal lands. Given that in these areas agrarian deactivation is a concern that comes hand-in-hand with depopulation, efforts to invert the process cannot not only focus those who would inherit the land from farmers. Therefore, an area of potential future research would be looking at new rural inhabitants who became new entrants into farming in mountain areas. According to Monllor (2013), in comparison with other farmers’ profiles, new entrants often adopt a model of production that is more concerned with social and environmental issues. The representation of new entrants in farming as the ideal figure within the return to the land has also  Especially after the 2013 issue on the topic

6

6  Return to the Land in Times of Crisis: Experiences, Policies and Narratives in…

105

spread throughout Italian media. In the period after 2010, we see articles in prominent national news outlets speaking about the socio-economic crises as a push factor for youth opting for job opportunities as farmers. We have often seen headlines such as “Youth and agriculture, is the return to the land a choice or a need?” (Pascale 18/02/2016) and “Agriculture, the boom of young people investing in land” (Cappellini M 5/05/2018) or “Against the crisis, people return to farming. In three years, 100 thousand jobs expected” (R’e Inchieste, 23/05/2013).

6.5  New Entrants and Access to Resources In modern history, land governance and access to land7 have been amongst the most influential variables in the design of social ecosystems, landscapes and social class division. Often, especially in contemporary history, the concept of access to land has mainly focused on tools for market access and the notion of property as the only means of gaining such access. An EIP-AGRI study shows that access to land as well as to access to basic resources are the main barriers for young farmers in Europe (EIP-AGRI 2016). The EU report (EU 3/2017: 3) states that “Whereas in 2013, in the 27-member EU, only 3.1 % of farms controlled 52.2 % of farmland in Europe, and whereas, by contrast, in 2013, 76.2 % of farms had the use of only 11.2 % of the agricultural land; whereas this trend runs counter to the European sustainable, multifunctional agricultural model, in which family farms are an important feature”. Concerning Italy, and according to the national agency for agrarian economy (INEA), it is possible to see a positive trend towards the diversification of the profiles of new farmers, especially in the north of the country. A relative improvement in the gender balance among new entrants into farming can also be detected in comparison to previous generations of farmers. The same report shows an increase in the diversification of economic activities (INEA 2014). In recent years, Italian agriculture has seen a trend towards dynamization especially in the multifunctionality production structures such as tourism services, high quality and/or territorially-­ embedded products, therapeutic services, etc. (Oostindie et  al. 2010). However, these dynamics could be considered positive trends set within a general landscape of deactivation and deagrarization, especially among small farms (INEA 2014). If we consider EUROSTAT data, processes of deactivation, aging, and land concentration are largely taking place in the southern rural areas of Europe. In Italy, land concentration and deactivation are important and worrying issues. Between the last two national censuses (2000–2010), we can observe a loss of more than 700,000 small farms (>20 hectares) across the country and a 42% increase of the average number of hectares per farm (Conti and Onorati 2012; Onorati and Pierfederici 2013). In Sicily, during the same period, that increase was 70% (ISTAT 2012).

7  Access is “the ability to derive benefits from things,” broadening from property’s classical definition as “the right to benefit from things” (Ribot and Peluso 2003: 153).

106

C. Ebbreo

Moreover, considering both changes in land use and the disappearance of small farms, the total amount of Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA) dropped by 12.9 million hectares between 1970 and 2010, again dropped by 12.3 million hectares between 2010 to 2013 (Longhitano and Povellato 2017). Together with this dynamic of concentration, we consider price dynamics to be related barriers for new farming activities. Land is still the most important capital to start a farming activity. In addition to the index of agriculture productivity, other non-food related issues contribute to competition for land use and to price increases. For example, CAP policy, tourism and residential tourism, energy extractions etc. (Longhitano and Povellato 2017). Therefore, merely the price variable is not enough to understand the complexity of the access to land for new entrants. It is also important to highlight that in Italy, regardless of the price stagnation that has characterized land markets in the recent years, limited access to credit and market instability has made investment in land available only to major investors. This is especially true for highly valuable lands. As a likely consequence, which we can see in recent ISTAT reports, data show a growing tendency for producing farms to be rented or free loaned assets (CREA 2016). In terms of land governance, it is important to note that land on the Italian governance spectrum is not just considered private or public property. In addition to these forms of land tenure, another category of access exits: that of Uso civico (Civic Use). According to Paoloni (2016), this institution – with origins in the feudal period – could be regarded as the institute of Common Law, with an explicit connection to a community: “Under the term civic use are included all of the the perpetual rights of the member of a specific community, on collective lands, public or private” (76). But beginning in the eighteenth century, the application of practice of ‘Uso Civico’ began to erode. It is during the fascist period that two national laws are promulgated (in 1927 and 1928) to terminate the institution of ‘civic uses’ or Usi civici (Paoloni 2016). For several historical reasons, the process was not completed; to the contrary, as Gatto (2017) argues, in 2010 these civic use spaces accounted for 10% of the national UAA (Utilized Agriculture Area). The majority of these areas are located in mountain areas and inner peripheries. After many years of silence, it was only in 2010 that policymaking related to land access and the right to land, especially concerning public and common lands, was revived. According to Povellato and Vanni (2017) the revival started at the end of 2000 with the opportunity to authorize the public sale of land as means to increase national wealth and reduce public debt in a time of economic crisis. In 2010 (G.U. n. 134 11/06/2014) and in 2014 (GU n.176 31/07/2014), two national laws that allowed the sale of public lands were promulgated; both laws made reference to the exceptionality of the economic situation. Specifically, they gave municipalities the right to liquidate their lands, which was described as a tool to combat youth unemployment. Another institution called Banca della Terra (Land Bank) was created in recent years with the aim of giving youth entrepreneurs access to public lands. The first laws to be promulgated were regional, with the very first coming in 2012 from the Tuscany regional government (Regional Law 80/2012) (Gatto 2017). In Sicily, the first law referencing the Land Bank appeared in 2014. In 2016, selection criteria was established and promulgated related to age. In 2017, under the same name – the

6  Return to the Land in Times of Crisis: Experiences, Policies and Narratives in…

107

Land Bank – the national government mandated that a national public institution, the Isituto per I Servizi del Mercato Agricolo Alimentare (Institute for services and agro-food marker, ISMEA) did further mapping of “abandonment” for public land sales that would officially start at the end of 2017 by way of a tender procedure. Following several normative attempts to liquidate the Usi Civici in recent years, in 2017 a new law (The Senate Law 31/05/2017) was promulgated, which stated that these lands were collective property intended public good. During the same period, a different type of land governance institution, known as the Associazione Fondiaria (Land Tenure Association), was introduced to address access to land. This was a voluntary association of landowners that put their lands into common use, giving other farmers access to the land while ensuring it for their own use. Lands governed by such a system were first introduced and eventually were properly legislated. This category of land tenure, which is French in origin, was first instituted in the Italian region of Piedmont in 2012. It was legislated in 2016 with a regional law (Povellato and Vanni 2017).

6.6  New Entrants in Madonie The Madonie region is nestled in the inner part of Sicily. Scholars of the histoire longue such as Aymard (2009) have described Sicily as an emblem of the South. As early as the sixteenth century, there was a society of latifundia present in the region, specialized in cereal production for exports. On this island with its history of domination, Aymard (2009) considers three elements concerning land that can be followed back through the years: The importance of the so-called two powers, the aristocracy and the church, the export of raw materials, and a political and financial dependency on powers that were at a great distance from the area. Sicily is situated in the Mediterranean and the Madonie region in the north west of Sicily. In the Madonie region, 21 small villages are surrounded by an estimated 40,000 hectares of natural reserve. According to Siragusa (2002), at the beginning of the 1920s three of every four inhabitants were employed in agriculture. Considering the relationship between the classes, models of production and the landscape, we observe that the hills and plains were a space for large landowners and extensive agriculture while the mountains were mainly a space for peasants and shepherds (Siragusa 2002). Finally, according to local testimonya the lack of investment in infrastructure in these highlands (for instance highways and irrigation systems) meant that agricultural production in these areas was unable to compete with the mechanized production, which took place in the hills and especially in the valleys. Additionally, the strategy of smallholders was to mix peasant activity with seasonal employment on larger farms. At that time, the mechanization of production drastically reduced the need for workers and consequently reduced job opportunities in the area. In present day Madonie, production is focused on raw products (especially cereals and meat) concentrated in lower altitudes. Farming in the area is characterized by dynamics of concentration and deactivation. There is a significant area comprised of public lands

108

C. Ebbreo

and forests and an important number of UAA8 classified as Usi civici, but there is little widespread knowledge of these areas (location, functions etc.). As noted from field research, there is just one village in the area, Geraci Siculo that still practices the common use of the Usi Civici, allocating them every year to breeders and shepherds. Their use is regulated through a public intervention by local authorities. Today, agrarian lands in the mountains mainly include residential homes while land tends to be maintained as gardens sown by old villagers and/or abandoned by their heirs. In the hills, some of the cereal farms that still exist are becoming larger while the smaller ones are disappearing. From the last agrarian census, the percentage of young farmers in Madonie was similar to the national rate.9 This most recent data set the area apart from other Italian inner peripheries that have reported even lower numbers. According to the local administration, most farmers in the area are continuing a family farming activity; they work in specialized crops and activities such as olives, cereals, and animal breeding. In some cases, these farmers have added processing into their production chain. In other cases, they have invested in activity diversification such as agritourism. In Madonie in 2010, agriculture represented 2.9% of total GDP (ISTAT 2010). From interviews with local authorities, a renewed interested in youth in agriculture can be perceived. Moreover, in the following excerpt from an interview, it is possible to see how local public authorities have observed the recent socio-­economic crisis and are aiming to reduce the gap between the number of new farmers in agriculture – those benefitting from CAP subsidies and the real number. “Perhaps there was a large percentage of youth asking for subsidies for a generational change in their family farm before, but then [this youth] would never really work on the farm. Nowadays, in times of crisis, the times are changing. There are not many alternatives and they realize that this is a good and easy way to get a job.” (Employee in a local public office, Madonie, November 2017). The interviewee considers that the recent years of crisis have made local farmers reconsider agriculture as a possible part time or full-time job opportunity. But as in other cases, agriculture is not enough. The aging process, stories of migration, and the abandonment of spaces of work such as agricultural land or craft shops, are the visible consequences of a steady out-migration. The local governmental development agency in this region recently published data demonstrating that the resident population declined an average of 24% from 1971 to 2011. In 2011, people older than 65 represented 26,15% of the total inhabitants. (Agenzia per la Coesione 2013). Due to the lack or a complete absence of regular water management and landscape and pasture maintenance in the higher zones, an estimated 40% of local inhabitants live in areas of high hydrogeological risk (Sosvima agency’s report 2014). In the higher mountains, new inhabitants engaging in an agrarian lifestyle have arrived in recent years; they are individuals, couples, young families, and small groups. They

8  The total area, according to the regional authority consulted during field research, was estimated at 8000 hectares. 9  Around 10% (ISTAT 2010)

6  Return to the Land in Times of Crisis: Experiences, Policies and Narratives in…

109

are from Sicily and elsewhere in Italy, characterized by a practice of counter-urbanization. During fieldwork, in response to the question “Who are the new entrants practicing agriculture in the area?”, it became clear that there have been few “new” experiences in the area over the last decade. The new entrants are known by almost everybody in the village. Not only there are few new entrants in the area, they also tend to have a new profile for villagers, distinct from those with which they are familiar. The excerpts below are part of interviews with new entrants into farming in the area. As it has been observed throughout this study, their main reasons for deciding to settle in the area include a desire to practice a deeply sustainable lifestyle, a recognition of the natural value of the area, the structure of social relations that the area maintains, and the conditions of land access. We arrived here by chance. We took part in a local market in Petralia and met local people that inspired us. We discovered that there was a certain kind of people here that [we like]. Then we decided to look for land in this area – it could have been in Petralia, but also anywhere in Madonie. We found this land and we fell in love. This land was full of trees; above all a person needs to be independent and to have something at the moment they settle. We started living on the land, first in a camper van, later in a tent. We have worked hard. We have been helped by neighbours. We chose this [plot] because it is full of water… the initial idea was doing both self-sufficiency and small production. Then, even if you start with the myth of going and totally living off the land, you realize the things that you need and depend on. (Lidia, neorural new entrant into farming from four years, Madonie, February 2018).

They interpret a sustainable model of farming as the answer to the structural crisis of sustainability, an agrarian lifestyle with a sustainable model of production. In this case, it seems to represent a strategy to fight it: “We see this system losing its values: the value of care, value of respect, value of humanity. Loosing so much that agriculture has put the whole world at risk. It is why people need now to start living another lifestyle, returning to the land, working hard and changing their life for changing this system.” (Claudia, neorural new entrant into farming from 3 years, Madonie, April 2018). [In our organization of farmers], an organic method of farming is not compulsory, but most of us do it. Some of us have organic certification, but we don’t. We decided not to get it because we know what underneath is this – we know that in the end it be the same as conventional farming, because it is business as usual, it has lost its values. We just do organic farming; it is enough. There is a very important basis for how and why we do organic farming. It would be nice if the organic method would be spontaneously practiced, such as a self-awareness concerning its value – ecological, social, all its value. The price [referring to environemntal, social and health costs] that you pay is not well known, even the individual price that you pay when you use certain kind of products.10 (Maria, neorural new entrant into farming from three years, Madonie, February 2018).

Among those interviewed, two main means of accessing the land are practiced: First, some new entrants transfer capital saved from previous work experience or  This use of even is because it implicitly considers also the social cost. This use of certain types refers to pesticides as well as to other toxic farming inputs.

10

110

C. Ebbreo

obtained through family support. In this case, one of the reasons they have chosen the area due to the fact that land prices in the area are accessible than in other areas. Some of them turn to cooperative bank loans and complement these investments in land with additional savings. The second means by which land is accessed  – a practice that is fairly widespread – is through the so-called right to use, facilitated by a local inhabitant who holds a piece of abandoned land. These are often considered as free loans or based on exchanges in kind and informal trades. In these cases, as we can see from interviews with new entrants into farming, there is often a perception of engaging in “social work” that has to be done, first from an ecological point of view and second, due to the intention that their practice will contribute to the promotion of sustainable local development processes. In all cases, new entrants considered their farming practice as an attempt to contribute to local development. With regards to this second element, they often underlined the need to be further sustained by local stakeholders, both in business and in their attitude towards cooperation. After the idea, we began on our path. We started in a field that had been abandoned for 25 years. It was the land of an ex-member’s grandfather. It has 40 trees. Then we got more land, measuring about two hectares. They were on their own. They already had apricot trees… 80. Later, another man died, he was a lawyer and his sister was a doctor. As a result, also this land would be destined to die. As everyone, he left the land with its [few] pieces of machinery. All of it was borrowed. When we started, we started recuperating unproductive lands, old trees. These lands would have all died without our intervention.11 (Claudio, a local new entrant into farming for four years, Madonie, February 2018). We go to Terra Madre because we think that by doing this, we can positively influence our territory.12 [It is also the reason why] we are taking part in the construction of the local market here in the village. […] We might build a more general proposal, also thinking about how to collaborate with the local administration. We have tried. We have tried with the mayor, with other administrators… it is important to understand what a system of cooperation might be. We have also tried with the local nursery, to be proactive concerning local hazelnut production. Maybe everybody is engaged in many things and this thing [cooperation] does not happen. Instead, it is important to understand how to do it. (Giuseppe, local new entrant into farming for four years, Madonie, March 2018).

After a first phase of investing time and labour into loaned lands, these new entrants realized that the system was not sustainable enough to make a living. The short-term return and/or vulnerability of this system generate too much risk for investors and these factors influence farming decisions. More generally, some of these entrants – especially those not in a condition to buy land – consider their presence in the area as unstable. This instability is constantly considered in the choices made concerning

 In the original interview, the phrase used, literally, spoke of these lands as though they were destined to die. This expression, together with the previous “they were on their own” refer to the subject’s perception of the condition of abandonment. 12  Terra Madre is in the Slow Food Foundation annual meeting. He refers to the fact that taking part in the meeting is also an economic investment that they do not do this just for their business but also to look for further opportunities in the territory that this participation might provide. 11

6  Return to the Land in Times of Crisis: Experiences, Policies and Narratives in…

111

the model of production. There is a steady tension between the long-term planning that this model of production requires and the short-term guarantees it provides. We are having a strong experience with this issue of land. It is because we started working the land through a free loan. We even had the nerve to make substantial investments through the PSR.13 Now, we need more land to work. Also, we accessed this land though a totally informal loan. We really worked very hard to get [the land] into shape. Then we had to leave it because we could not afford to manage it… we are a not in an easy economic situation.14 We are not wishing that we had a latifundium. Maybe we should move towards a sharing system with land. Also, we could engage the regional parks institution or the municipality more. In this return to the land, we are talking about the issue of land – it is really a contemporary issue: land as an important economic good [….] The building where there is the processing plant is up for rent. Home rented. We would like to have more land. The land issue must not be underestimated. If you even think “simply” about the business structure.15 (Giuseppe, a local new entrant into farming for six years, Madonie, March 2018).

Networks of producers working to preserve biodiversity while sharing labour are practices that have created links between local and foreign new entrants and farmers, generally speaking. In fact, looking at the model of production employed by new entrants, it is possible to observe a tendency towards the creation of an embedded market and the use of non-monetary exchanges in these local economies, including the exchange of working hours and knowledge. Such behaviour represents the replication of practices that govern the commons, including water or forest management as well as local biodiversity, as it implies learning from neighbours, who are mostly of an older generation, and farming for self-consumption. As a consequence, these entrants also take part in the social structure of relationships and exchanges. Similar to peasant farming model of production, they attempt to control their resources as much as they can. Remaining small and locally-embedded from an economic, material and symbolical point of view plays a role in construction a paradigm of wellbeing. The goal is often to achieve a “minimal status of wellbeing” (Mario, new entrant, Madonie, March 2018). It is important to underline that these new ruralities root their self-representation in the territory that hosts them. This is based upon the notion that they contribute to a new narrative assigned to the region: no longer a place of abandonment, but instead a place to take care of because of its importance in terms of biodiversity and cultural diversity. However, in this place there are few neighbours and many more abandoned plots of land. It is important to highlight that the crisis in this context, especially concerning its impact on youth employment, does not act directly as a pushing factor, such as a motivation to begin farming activity. It does, however, represent a general context characterized by a lack of residual, part time or even  She refers to funds received though the regional rural development programme in the form of a policy aid for young farmers. 14  He refers to the fact they did not have the economic opportunity to make the needed investment that would allow for the farming of this land. 15  He refers to the fact that advantages for farmers are mainly oriented towards landowners. One of the examples he offered, later in the same interview, was that, “for example, you do not even receive the VAT [tax] refund if it is not your land.” 13

112

C. Ebbreo

temporary income. In this scenario, there is not an alternative or part-time job that would provide the savings needed to invest in farming. The level of depopulation and the degree of abandonment has placed these responsibilities on few people. In other words, not only are transaction costs for production increasing but the need for constant reproductive labour is high in places where community support is especially lacking. As is true for other members of their own age group (25–35 years), these individuals have never possessed enough money to make large investments, such as buying land or making improvements so as to recover the costs of abandonment. Improvement work such as the installation of fences, water systems and forest management are not productive. Instead, they are at the base of socio-ecological landscape reproduction and, due to the low population density, the work that remains to be done is higher as those doing it must compensate for the absentees. Moreover, the condition of ex novo differs from that of those who are continuing in such activities, as they have a resource base that they can invest towards conversion to a production model considered more sustainable. As it is possible to see in the following interview excerpts, supporting a return to the land in their area is not just a question of access to land, but also an issue of the social and public support given to their specific model of production. There is not enough public support or subsidies in rural development for small-scale, diversified and low-capital agriculture; these features are the most representative of the model of production practiced by the new entrants returning to the land in this study case. The common perception of new entrants is that there is a strong social narrative that approves of their trajectory but offers few tools to support it. It is widely accepted that there is a mismatch between the social approval of such a production model and active policy that would encourage it. Together with the testimonies of local administrators, they consider that current and recent policies addressing land access and direct subsidies are not adequate for their model of production: “We produce much more than it is possible to calculate though a business plan, and there is no support that exists for us. It is because what is possible to calculate results too small for them”. (Giulio, a neorural new entrant into farming for 4 years, Madonie, September 2018). It is hard to find funding for small-scale farming. It is especially hard for the new concept of land governance we would like to experiment with. There are forms that are different from the individual, entrepreneurship-based model, which is considered for its economic added value. And this kind of model cannot work here. It is a long story of crisis in these territories, which still lack the tools to face it. (A stakeholder from the local administration, Madonie, September 2018).

During recent public forums and focus groups,16 several new entrants into farming participated in the organized discussions. They contributed to the analysis of a possible strategy that would link access to abandoned land to that for Usi civici and  Focus groups took place in different municipalities in the area during the two years (2016/2017) of participatory activities related to the inner periphery development planning policy. Consider that much of the information in this study comes from participation in and the analysis of the whole process, including three focus groups related to youth, agriculture, and biodiversity.

16

6  Return to the Land in Times of Crisis: Experiences, Policies and Narratives in…

113

ecosystem and landscape management. They considered the lack of access to appropriate economic resources for their activities, the underestimation of their ecosystem management skills, and the lack of infrastructure for food processing that would enable them to establish a better local market. The first results of this local policy planning program have taken the form of a proposal for land governance that aims to link access to land to the development of a local food system. Improvement of small-scale, diversified farming, and community support for indirect production practices such as biodiversity management have been flagged as the primary needs behind such a program. Access to land has not been expressed as an isolated issue but rather as a part of a larger set of issues concerning the resilience of a peasant way of life and local economies situated in mountain areas. At the time of policy implementation, interventions with the goal of creating new access to land systems had focused on specific mountain areas that already specialized in production whereas the other mountain areas, such as those debated in this text, were left on the side lines.

6.7  Conclusion What has been observed in this study is a particular use of the concept of the crisis as one that has given new meaning to rural space. It has served to describe it and build it; it is a concept that has moved some actors to rethink their practices and role in the construction of this space. At the same time, from what we have seen in the context of the study, crisis in long-term dynamics also designs rural spaces. More specifically, the inner peripheries can be considered as a space that has endured long-term crises. In these spaces, agrarian modernization has created a conceptual shift between territories and among territories. Through time, mountains have been designed, on one hand, as non-productive areas and, on the other hand, as a place of common resources. Modernization has conceptually separated the territories into parts, as though it would have been possible to separate them without controversial effects. Mountainous rural spaces embody the emblematic disconnect between a capitalist model of production, its application to the organization of the food system, and the endogenous development of the territory. As a consequence of this analysis, the concept of triple erosion is suggested as a simplified synthesis of this disconnect. There have been structural crises linked to this disconnect due to the socio-ecological interdependency between traditional farming and the ecosystem management of mountains in the Mediterranean. In one of these territories – the context of the study case – there are signs of youth returning to the land, moved by structural crises to practice an agrarian lifestyle and sustainable models of farming. In these cases, the impact of the recent socio-economic crisis is perceived as irrelevant as compared to the long present dynamics of peripheralization. As new entrants into farming, they experience accessing resources, especially concerning the stability of access to land and the economic resources needed to transition their farm. Again, in Madonie region, recent socio-economic stagnation did not influence the

114

C. Ebbreo

choice of new entrants into farming but instead influenced the opportunities that allowed them to start. In the representation of the rural space they are experiencing, the concept of crisis refers to a long-term and multidimensional concept. As emphasized in this study, recent land policy emerged in light of the contemporary socio-­ economic crisis and within this second conceptualization. Their analytical framing underlines impact of the crisis upon youth employment and policies on land access as a means of combatting this trend. After highlighting recent normative activities concerning land governance, it is important to underline several related considerations: First, it is true that the years after 2010 have marked a change in the policy-­ making concerning land governance. Almost 70 years ago, the last time the issue was approached by a normative intervention across the country, the explicit goal was to grant ownership to the landless. There was a general crisis of employment; entrepreneurship in agriculture was proposed as an alternative and solution to the peasant farming system; the right to land was seen as the tool. For several reasons, this approach has failed. Emblematic in this failure is the tangible, deactivation crisis seen in the local development of the inner peripheries. Nevertheless, in recent policies the discourse focuses on young entrepreneurs in agriculture for regional economic growth in times of crisis. As before, these policies do not address problems in the model of production, even if it is clear that they refer to a paradigm of growth. Second, policies where access to land is market-led or driven by the urgency of the crisis may result in new accumulation processes in rural territories. It is coherent with the progressive historic idea of a transformation of public and common goods into private property and/or use as the best governance solution (See for example Borras et al. 2007). Third, this policy-making does not specifically address new entrants into farming or sustainable models of production. For example, it does not mention any special conditions referring to new entrants, nor does it make mention of specific issues related to the growth of the farming population, preventing farm concentration or giving priority to specific models of production. Here, we observe that policies of land governance have continued to represent farming as an opportunity of growth in times of crisis, especially in the southern regions of Italy. However, it is argued that the crisis of the rural, especially in inner peripheries, is more related to structural problems than to recent economic concerns. Land access policies emerging in the wake of the 2008 crisis not only omit these structural dynamics but also risk exacerbating existing problems. With theoretical and empirical research, this study analyses how this “opportunity in time of crises” perspective does not take into account the structural elements concerning the relationship between the model of production and territorial sustainability. Additionally, in the fieldwork included in this research, the subjects of the “return to the land” movement express their perception of disconnection between practice, policy and discourse on the phenomenon. From the case study, we can see these policies have meant little to the specific intentions these protagonists brought to the return to the land experience. Once again, several aspects of policy-making concerning access to land has not included a structural reflection on territorial paradigms and food

6  Return to the Land in Times of Crisis: Experiences, Policies and Narratives in…

115

system sustainability. They do not specifically address rural exodus or the related, complex issue of local development. Instead they have focused on individual interests and opportunities that are “extractable” from certain rural spaces. They represent that rural is a place for entrepreneurship and the crisis is the opportunity to reconsider land as a capital. In conclusion, in the process of constructing the rural space of our time, it is possible to observe disconnections in practices, policies, and perceptions. In this study case, this distance is represented in the controversial relationship between the representation of rural space that recent policies propose and the spatial practice of the return to the land movement in a specific inner periphery. This distance is occupied by the different uses of the concept of crisis, as well as the practices, policies and representations of the return to the land.

References Agenzia per Coesione Territoriale Selezione aree progetto (2013). http://www.agenziacoesione. gov.it/it/arint/Strategie_di_area/Preliminare_di_strategia.html. Accessed 15 Jun 2017 Aymard M (2009) Alle origini del Sud: l’esempio della Sicilia. In: Petrusewicz M, Schneider JP (eds) I sud: conoscere, capire, cambiare. Il Mulino, Rome Battaglini L, Corrado F (2014) Il ritorno alla terra nei territori rurali-montani: diversi aspetti di un fenomeno in atto. Scienze del Territorio 2:79–86 Bevilacqua P (2002) L’osso. Meridian 55:7–14 Bevilacqua P (2008) Miseria dello sviluppo. La Terza Economica, Bari Bevilacqua P (2012) Precedenti storici e caratteristiche del declino delle aree interne. In abstract from the conference Le aree interne: nuove strategie per la programmazione 2014–2020 della politica di coesione territoriale. December 15, Rome Borras S, Kay C, Lahiff E (eds) (2007) A Market led agrarian reform, contestation and trajectories. Third World Quarterly 28/8 Brunori G, Rossi A, Malandrin V (2010) Co-producing transition: innovation processes in farms adhering to solidarity-based purchase groups (GAS) in Tuscany, Italy. Int J Soc Agric Food 18(/1):28–53 Camarero L (1993) Del éxodo rural y del éxodo urbano. Ocaso y renacimiento de los asentamientos rurales en España. Serie Estudios, Madrid Carrosio G (2013) Reti sociali e nuovi abitanti nelle aree rurali montane. Scienze del Territorio 1:201–210 Carrosio G, Osti G (2017) Le aree marginali in Barbera F., Pais I, Fondamenti di sociologia economica, EGEA, 303–316 Canale G, Ceriani M (2013) Contadini per scelta. Esperienze e racconti di nuova agricoltura. Jaka Book, Rimini Cersosimo D (2012) Tracce di Futuro: Indagine esplorativa sui giovani coldiretti. Donzelli Editori, Rome Conti M, Onorati A (2012) Terra e agricultura. Il caso Italiano, Terra Onlus Available at http:// wwwcroceviaterrait/wp/wp-. Accessed 20 Jan 2017 Corrado F, De Matteis G, Di Gioia A (2014) Nuovi montanari. Abitare le Alpi nel XXI secolo. Franco Angeli Editore, Milano Corpus A, Noguera J (2016). Le “periferie interne”. Che cosa sono e di quali politiche necessitano?, Agriregionieuropa anno 12 n°45 Retrieved at https://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/it/ content/article/31/45/le-periferie-interne-che-cosa-sono-edi-quali-politiche-necessitano

116

C. Ebbreo

CREA (2016) L’agricoltura italiana conta. Roma De Benedictis M (2002) L’agricoltura del Mezzogiorno. La polpa e l’osso cinquant’anni dopo. Franco Angeli, Milano De Benedictis M (2015) Manlio Rossi-Doria. Moneta e Credito, 68/272. Available at https://ssrn. com/abstract=3140540 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3140540. Accessed 20 Jan 2017 Del Plata L (2018) Intervention at the conference Territori Spezzati. University of Siena, Italy, May 24–26 EIP-AGRI Focus Group (2016) New entrants into farming: lessons to foster innovation and entrepreneurship Final report. EU p. 40. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/focusgroups/new-entrants-farming-lessons-foster-innovation-and. Accessed 20 Feb 2019 European Commission (2017) Young farmers in EU: structural and economics characteristics, EU Agricultural and farm economic BRIEF EC. Available at https://eceuropaeu/agriculture/sites/ agriculture/files/rural-area- economics/briefs/pdf/015_enpdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2019 European Union ESPON (2017) Shrinking rural region in Europe. Available at https://www.espon. eu/sites/default/files/attachments/ESPON%20Policy%20Brief%20on%20Shrinking%20 Rural%20Regions.pdf Ferlaino F (2015) Le aree interne. Pre-testo per una postmodernità sostenibile. In: Meloni B (ed) Aree interne e progetti d’area. Rosenberg & Sellier, Torino, pp 159–173 Fondazione Montagne Italia, (2015). Rapporto Montagne Italia 2015, Montagne Italia Gatto P (2017) Accesso alla terra e assetti fondiari collettivi: uno sguardo alla situazione internazionale e italiana. Agriregionieuropa, 13/49. Available at https://agriregionieuropa.univpm. it/it/content/article/31/49/accesso-alle-terre-e-assetti-fondiari-collettivi-uno-sguardo-alla-situazione. Accessed 25 Jan 2018 Halfacree K (2001) Constructing the object: taxonomic practices, ‘counterurbanisation’ and positioning marginal rural settlement. Int J Popul Geogr:395–411 Halfacree K (2006) Rural space: constructing a threefold architecture. In: Clocke C (ed) Handbook of rural studies. Sage, London, pp 44–62 Halfacree K (2007) Back to the land in the twenty first century, making connection with rurality. Sociale Geografie 98(1):3–8 INEA (2014) Nuova imprenditoria per l’agricoltura italiana. caratteri, dinamiche e strutture aziendali. Rome. Available at http://antares.crea.gov.it:8080/-/nuova-imprenditoria-per-l-agricoltura-italiana-caratteri-dinamiche-e-strutture-aziendali. Accessed 25 Jan 2018 ISTAT, 2010, Annuario 2010, ISTAT ISTAT, 2012, Annuario 2012, ISTAT Lefevbre H (1974) La prodution del espace. Blackwell, Oxford Longhitano D, Povellato A (2017) Accesso alla terra e mobilità fondiaria. Agriregionieuropa anno 13 n°49, Giu 2017. Available at https://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/it/content/article/31/49/ mobilita-fondiaria-e-accesso-alla-terra. Accessed 25 Jan 2018 Lucatelli S (2016) Strategia Nazionale per le Aree Interne: un punto a due anni dal lancio della Strategia. Agri:12.45, 4–12.45,10 Lucatelli S et  al (2013) A strategy for ‘inner areas’ in Italy. In: Education, local economy and job opportunities in rural areas in the context of demographic change: proceedings of the 2. EURUFU scientific conference (Asti, Italy), pp 69–79 Macdonalda D, Crabtree JR, Wiesinger G et al (2000) Agriculture abandonment in mountain areas of Europe. Environmental Consequences and policy response. J Environ Manag 59:47–69 Magnaghi A (2006) Dalla Partecipazione all’Autogoverno della comunità locale: verso il federalismo municipale solidale. Democrazia e diritto 3:134–150. Available at http://www.geofilosofia.it/terra/Magnaghi.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2017 Mantino F, De Fano G (2015) Sviluppo rurale, innovazione sociale e politiche per le aree interne. TERRITORIO Monllor N (2013) La nova pagesia: vers un nu model agrosocial. Quaderns Agraris 35:7–24

6  Return to the Land in Times of Crisis: Experiences, Policies and Narratives in…

117

Mormont M (1990) Who is rural? Or how to be rural? Towards a sociology of the rural. In: Marsden T, Lowe P (eds) Rural restructuring: global processes and their responses. Fulton, Londres, pp 21–44 Onida M (2016) La montagna nelle politiche dell’Unione europea: Le terre alte figlie di un dio minore?. Scienze del Territorio 4:58–66, Firenze University Press, Florence Onorati A, Pierfederici C (2013), Land concentration and green grabs in Italy: the case of Furtovoltaico in Sardinia in TNI. (2013) land concentration, land grabbing and people’s struggles in Europe final report., Retrieved at https://www.tni.org/en/publication/ land-concentration-land-grabbing-and-peoples-struggles-ineurope-0 Oostindie H, Ploeg J, Broekhuizen R et al (2010) The central role of nested markets in rural development in Europe. Riv Econ Agrar 65(/2):191–224 Osti G (2013) Neorurali e figli di agricoltori non invertono la corsa verso la città. Scienze del Territorio 2:275–280 Paoloni L (2016) Usi Civici. The Italian side of the “commons”. Annali 16(2014–2015):75–87 Parascandolo F (2016) Beni comuni, sistemi comunitari e usi civici: Riflessioni a partire da un caso regionale. Medea 2(1):1–21 Parlamento Italiano (lay 23th of December, 1999), Disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato, legge finanziaria 2000, Retrived at http://www.parlamento. it/parlam/leggi/99488l.htm Pazzagli R, Bonini G (2017) Italia Contadina. Dall’esodo rurale al ritorno alla campagna. Aracne Editori, Rome Povellato A, Vanni F (2017). Nuovi strumenti per le politiche fondiarie. Banca della Terra e Associazioni fondiarie. Agriregioneuropa, 13 n.47, Retrived at agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/ Renting H, Rossing et  al (2009) Exploring multifunctional agriculture, a review of conceptual approaches and prospects for an integrative transitional ramework. J Environ Manag 90:S112–S123 Ribot JC, Peluso NL (2003) A theory of access. Institutions and governance program world resources institute. Rural Sociol 68(2):153–181 Rivera MJ (2007) La ciudad no era mi lugar. Los significados residenciales de la vuelta al campo en Navarra. Universidad Pública de Navarra, Navarra Rossi Doria M (1952) La Polpa e L’osso. La terza, Bari Servolin C (1972) L’absortion de l’agriculture dans les modes de produccion capitaliste. In: L’univers des politiques Paysannes dans la France contemporaine. A Colin, Paris, pp 41–77 Siragusa G (2002) La rottura di un sistema parassitario. Il caso esemplare delle Madonie. In: Marino GC (ed) A cinquant’anni dalla riforma agraria in Sicilia. Franco Angeli Editori, Milano Stewart L (1992) Bodies’ visions, and spatial politics: a review essay on Henri Lefebvre’s the production of space. Environ Plann I Soc Space 13:609–618 Strijker D (2005) Marginal lands in Europe—causes of decline. Basic Appl Ecol 6:99–106 Toledo V (1992) La racionalidad ecológica de la producción campesina. Agroecología y desarrollo España, 5/6. Available at http://www.clades.cl/revistas/5/rev5art3.htm. Accessed 15 Jan 2016 Toledo VM (2017) La Racionalidad Ecológica de la Producción Campesina. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322136859_La_Racionalidad_Ecologica_de_la_ Produccion_Campesina_Victor_M_Toledo-Universidad_Nacional_de_Mexico. Accessed 30 Mar 2019 UVAL (2014) A strategy for inner areas in Italy. Available at http://www.agenziacoesione.gov.it/ opencms/export/sites/dps/it/documentazione/servizi/materiali_uval/Documenti/MUVAL_31_ Aree_interne_ENG.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar 2016 Van Der Ploeg JD (2008) The new peasantries: struggle for autonomy and sustainability in an era of empire and globalization. Earthscan, New York, USA Van Der Ploeg JD (2013) Peasant and the art of farming. A Chayanov manifesto. Practical Action Publishing, Rugby

118

C. Ebbreo

Van der Ploeg JD (2016) Family farming in Europe and central Asia: history characteristics, threats and potentials, International Policy centre for Inclusive Growth. Working Paper N. 153, FAO/ UNDP, Brasilia Vitale A (2013) Nuovi contadini e ritorno alla terra: dalle radici al rizoma. In: Sivini S, Corrado A (eds) Cibo locale. Percorsi innovativi nelle pratiche di produzione e consumo alimentare. Liguori, Napoli, pp 17–38 Wilbur A (2013) Networks of knowledge in rural northern Italy. Sociol Rural 55(2):167–185 Carlotta Ebbreo  is specialized in development studies and agroecology. She has PhD in Policy, Culture, and Development at the University of Calabria (Italy). Her research interests are local development, participatory action research as well as policies, practices and power relations of the agro-food systems.

Chapter 7

‘No Choice’ or ‘A Choice’? – An Exploratory Analysis of ‘Back to the Countryside’ Motivations and Adaptation Strategies in Times of Crisis in Greece and Portugal Elisabete Figueiredo, Maria Partalidou, and Stavriani Koutsou

7.1  Introduction This chapter aims to explore the narratives of former urban dwellers that have returned and relocated (or started a business) in the countryside, following the financial and economic crisis both in Greece and in Portugal. Although, as Giannakis and Bruggeman (2017) state, the crisis affected all European countries, its intensity and consequences varied greatly across the continent. In consequence, as Capello et al. (2015) explain, social and economic resilience also manifested differently from one country to another as well as between regions. In both Greece and Portugal, the consequences of the crisis were devastating at several levels and for diverse sets of actors, leading to the adoption of stability programmes and harsh austerity measures by governments in collaboration with international lenders (Ragkos et  al. 2016; Giannakis and Bruggeman 2017; Santana et al. 2015). The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in both countries dramatically decreased, while unemployment rates rose enormously, contributing to an increase in the number of people at risk of poverty (Giannakis and Bruggeman 2017).

E. Figueiredo (*) Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] M. Partalidou Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece e-mail: [email protected] S. Koutsou School of Agriculture, International Hellenic University, Thessaloniki, Greece e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 F. N. Döner et al. (eds.), Crisis and Post-Crisis in Rural Territories, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50581-3_7

119

120

E. Figueiredo et al.

The degradation of living conditions and the deterioration of the economic situation for many individuals and families, especially those affected by unemployment, fostered emigration processes, mainly of young highly qualified people, to the central and northern countries of Europe (Fingleton et al. 2015) and the search for alternative strategies to cope with the consequences of the crisis. For others, while not so much affected by its effects, the crisis triggered the desire to search for better quality of life and to experiment with alternative lifestyles (Anthopoulou et al. 2017; Remoundou et al. 2016). Both Greece and Portugal, besides the devastating effects of the economic crisis, share social and economic characteristics together with common paths regarding rural and agricultural transformations, experiencing long-lasting processes of rural abandonment and decline. However, amidst the dramatic social and economic downfall, both in Greece and in Portugal the agricultural sector showed positive indicators (Hilmi and Burbi 2016). In fact, between 2008 and 2012, the Pan-Hellenic Confederation of Agricultural Associations revealed that 32,000 jobs had been created in Greece, while in Portugal the number of jobs in agriculture had increased 10.6% in the same period, representing the largest increase out of all economic sectors (Hilmi and Burbi 2016). To a certain extent, this data corroborates that the crisis triggered the return to the countryside in both countries and has reinforced the positive and idyllic political and media narratives about the rural as a place of refuge, full of employment opportunities in agriculture and tourism-related businesses, especially for the younger generations. Through these narratives, rural areas seemed to have regained their productive status and function, always reinforced by the ‘success stories’ advertised by the media (Figueiredo et al. 2019). Even though there is a lack of official data, both in Greece and in Portugal, regarding the number of people that have relocated to the countryside following the crisis and, therefore, it is more difficult to access their motivations and strategies in a representative manner, this chapter intends to unveil the stories of some relocation protagonists, focusing on their motivations and adaptation strategies. As Hilmi and Burbi (2016) have done, although based on the analysis of newspapers, our aim is to analyse what happens in the minds of those directly concerned in order to shed light on what triggers these movements and their consequences. The empirical evidence gathered from 24 semi-structured interviews conducted in northern Greece (N = 14) and northern and central parts of Portugal (N = 10), demonstrates both the diversity of narratives of ex-urban dwellers on their motivations to relocate and adaptation strategies. These results reinforce previous findings (e.g. Gkartzios 2013; Gkartzios et al. 2017; Halfacree 2008; Kasimis and Zografakis 2012; Remoundou et al. 2016) and add to the debate on the so-called ‘crisis-counterurbanisation’ in Southern European contexts. The chapter departs from the debate on the role of Greek and Portuguese rural territories as spaces of refuge in times of crisis, followed by a discussion on the diversity of the ‘back to the countryside’ movements and the content of the so-­ called crisis-counterurbanisation dynamics in the third section. The fourth section is devoted to the presentation of the methodology and of the cases analysed followed by the presentation and discussion of results in the fifth section. Finally, some

7 ‘No Choice’ or ‘A Choice’? – An Exploratory Analysis of ‘Back…

121

conclusions are presented, highlighting the multitude of motivations underlying the processes of relocation in the countryside, the adaptation strategies and their success/failure, as well as the possible impacts on local communities.

7.2  Rural Areas as Refuges in Times of Crisis As demonstrated by Figueiredo (2013), Galani-Moutafi (2013), Kasimis and Zografakis (2012), Oliveira Baptista (2006) and Soares da Silva et  al. (2016), amongst others, during recent decades, rural areas in Southern European countries have undergone dramatic changes that have been especially visible in remote and marginalized regions. Although these changes have been translated into diverse types of consequences in different rural areas (Figueiredo 2013) a consensus seem to exist regarding their main causes: the declining relevance of agriculture in the local and overall economy, the decreasing of farming populations, diminishing farm prices, reduction of income, diversification of employment and the influx of cheaper flexible labour (Galani-Moutafi 2013; Oliveira Baptista 2006). The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) also induced important transformations which mainly targeted small and traditional farmers and that had the reinforcement of the abandonment of agriculture in many rural areas as a general consequence (Figueiredo 2013; Goussios 2011; Kasimis and Papadopoulos 2013; Koutsou and Botsiou 2017; Oliveira Baptista 2006). With the increasing decline of agriculture, the remaining farmers and rural dwellers had to adjust to a post-productive (Marsden 1995; Oliveira Baptista 2006) and post-agricultural (Kasimis and Papadopoulos 2013) transition in which multifunctionality seemed to be the keyword (Figueiredo 2013). Even though some authors (e.g. Holmes 2006; Wilson and Burton 2015) state that post-productivism and multifunctionality are contested concepts, these notions have been widely used mainly to address so-called rural restructuring (Marsden et  al. 1990). Rural restructuring mainly expresses the transformations in traditional land uses, economic activities and social dynamics (e.g. Eusébio et al. 2017). As Holmes (2006) states, at the core of the rural transition to multifunctionality there is a dramatic reordering of the three traditional uses of space: production, consumption and protection. Currently one may identify the leading role of consumption and protection in determining the future of many marginal rural areas of the developed world, particularly in Europe in which the common policy orientations for rural areas have an important role (Figueiredo 2013; Holmes 2006). These orientations have contributed to transforming many rural areas into places of consumption (Halfacree 2006), therefore promoting the development of place-consumption oriented activities, whether related to traditional agro-productive ones or not (Halfacree 2006; Holmes 2006). These processes induced profound changes in the materialities and meanings of rural areas (Galani-Moutafi 2013) which – although contested – contributed to reinforcing rural transition and restructuring. Rural areas are nowadays portrayed and represented in a manifold way in Southern European countries (Soares da Silva

122

E. Figueiredo et al.

et al. 2016), even if a homogenous (and perhaps hegemonic, imported from AngloSaxon context) positive meaning is often associated with the countryside. As Anthopoulou et al. (2017) describe, rural areas in Greece are nowadays perceived as places combining pleasant living conditions and stimulating employment opportunities (particularly in areas such as tourism, environmental services and agrofood). As again Anthopoulou et al. (2017: 1) state, “The changing character of rurality, grafted with diverse urban features (economic activities, social composition, consumption models, etc.) has had manifold effects – of both attraction and repulsion – on migration patterns from and to the countryside at different times, in the context of new significations of rural space”. Overall, rural transition processes, as well as the social representations that have accompanied them – have given rise to a rural that is no longer considered just a space doomed to decline (Galani-Moutafi 2013) but also as revitalized and dynamic, able to attract new activities and inhabitants, including those motivated by the economic crisis (Hilmi and Burbi 2016). In many parts of Europe, the economic crisis has reinforced the notion of ‘rural idyll’ mainly through emerging narratives and representations of the rural as a resilient space and a place of refuge in troubled times (Anthopoulou et  al. 2017). Frequently this notion is based on representations and narratives of the countryside as authentic, genuine, keeping the true character and soul of a country, contrasting with the artificial, problematic and ever-changing nature of urban areas. Opposing city life, the notion of rural idyll tends to increasingly portray the rural as the epitome of the good and pleasant life (Figueiredo 2019), especially in face of a perceived urban-centred crisis.1 As Bock (2013) states, rural areas are no longer seen as merely fragile, but also the stage for social innovation and resilience, therefore demonstrating the ability to cope with dramatic transforming circumstances. While this is a rather optimistic vision on rural transition processes, not applicable to many areas in the Southern European context in general and in Greece and Portugal in particular, it has inspired social, political and media narratives on the rural as a space of refuge in times of crisis. It is undeniable that (rural) resilience is a complex and multidimensional concept (Figueiredo 2016; Anthopoulou et  al. 2017) that means rather different things from one place to another, depending on the geographical, political and socioeconomic position. However, resilience – when applied to social contexts – seems to be mainly a buzzword (Diprose 2014) used to describe some forms of coping, adapting and even resisting change and disruption than a concrete process. During the crisis, resilience (rural but also urban) seemed to have been the answer for every hardship which people and territories had to face, a “catch-all to arms for an age of uncertainty” (Diprose 2014: 44). In fact, resilience is mainly about the strong, the ones that succeed. However, the weak and disadvantaged still exist and, in this sense, discourses on resilience may represent a failure of the political structures to offer mechanisms of change for marginalized communities and people. During the times of crisis, resilience was also used to mask

1  However, the crisis had also significant consequences in rural areas, as Anthopoulou et al. 2017 demonstrate for the Greek case and Figueiredo et al. (2019) describe for the Portuguese context.

7 ‘No Choice’ or ‘A Choice’? – An Exploratory Analysis of ‘Back…

123

difficulties and to romanticize both poor and fragile territories (such as the marginalized rural areas) and people. Both in Greece and Portugal, after 2008, political and media narratives on the rural resilience and idyll emerged alongside the intensification of the consequences of the economic crisis, portraying the rural as a space of refuge (Anthopoulou et al. 2017; Figueiredo et  al. 2019; Gkartzios et  al. 2017; Hilmi and Burbi 2016; Remoundou et al. 2016). These narratives presented the countryside as the easiest solution to the urban-centred effects of the crisis (Gkartzios et al. 2017),2 as a territory full of opportunities mainly in agriculture and tourism-related businesses (Anthopoulou et al. 2017), particularly for the younger generations. The resilient rural is often presented as a solution, replacing necessary intervention from the state and its role in protecting people and communities and in solving problems that were created mainly in the political sphere. Despite the ambiguity, the vagueness and, to a certain extent the hypocrisy attached to that notion, it is quite evident that it represented a kind of an umbrella narrative for politicians and policies to attract rural in-migrants during the crisis (e.g. Anthopoulou et al. 2017; Figueiredo 2016).

7.3  Crisis-Counterurbanisation? In both countries, besides the fact that it is not possibly to quantify the number of persons that have moved to the countryside (mainly due to the lack of official statistics and research studies), it is also not possible to establish a linear relationship between this relocation and the financial and economic consequences of the crisis (Kasimis and Zografakis 2012). In fact, within counterurbanisation movements, there is a wide set of mobility types expressing a variety of motivations (from necessity to individual/family choices), as well as of factors underlying it (Figueiredo et  al. 2019; Gkartzios 2013; Gkartzios et  al. 2017; Halfacree 2008; Kasimis and Zografakis 2012; Remoundou et al. 2016). Recent studies demonstrated the wish of many Portuguese and Greek urban residents to relocate to the countryside (Remoundou et al. 2016; Soares da Silva and Figueiredo 2014). As Remoundou et al. (2016) mention, a study commissioned in 2012 by the Greek Ministry of Rural Development and Food demonstrated that 68.2% of the residents in Athens and Thessaloniki (the largest Greek urban areas) had thought of moving to a rural area, mainly to work in agriculture. However only

2  Some examples of media and political narratives in Greece and in Portugal may be found in Figueiredo et al. (2019) and Hilmi and Burbi (2016). These authors also present a collection of media stories on the ‘back to the rural’ movements in both countries. Titles such as “Portuguese Return to Farming to Counter Unemployment and Austerity” (Almeida in Bloomberg, 2013), “Portuguese People are Returning to Farming in Droves” (Alvarenga in Business Insider, 2012), “With Work Scarce in Athens, Greeks Go Back to the Land” (Donadio in The New York Times, 2012) or “Can’t find a job? These young Greeks trade the big city for life down on the farm” (Apostolou in USA Today, 2018) are good examples of those narratives.

124

E. Figueiredo et al.

19.3% had organized the process of relocation, but still it is not clear (from the study) if they actually moved on to materialise this decision. Of these, 57.1% were between 25 and 39 years old. Likewise in Portugal, results from a relatively recent research project revealed that 51.5% of the urban residents surveyed expressed the desire to move to a rural context. Their motivations were related to the search for a better quality of life and to the lower costs of living (Soares da Silva and Figueiredo 2014). As in Greece, in Portugal this wish to relocate is also expressed mainly by people aged between 25 and 49 years old. Although addressing the topic differently, the studies mentioned suggest a counterurbanisation trend in which younger populations seem to be the main protagonists. Hilmi and Burbi (2016), although based on just a few examples of news stories issued in international newspapers on Greece, Spain, Portugal and Iceland during the most difficult years of the crisis, refer to the increasing involvement of young people in agriculture, mainly in organic farming, highlighting the role of policy measures in these relocation processes. As suggested before, the recent relocation mobilities may be considered as counterurbanisation movements triggered by the crisis. There is a vast set of literature on counterurbanisation, a term used to describe the demographic changes that occur in non-metropolitan regions, caused by the influx of people. In her seminal work on the multiple meanings and levels of counterurbanisation, Mitchell (2004) defined diverse categories or types of counterurbanisation: ex-urbanisation, displaced-­ urbanisation and anti-urbanisation. The first intends to describe the movement of wealthy urban dwellers to rural areas on the outskirts of large cities with which they maintain mainly work connections. The second type of counterurbanisation refers to relocation processes which are mainly motivated by the need for a new job, lower costs of living and available and affordable housing. Finally, the anti-urbanisation type refers to those that reject the urban lifestyle in favour of a simpler existence in the countryside, far from the perceived higher crime rates, congestion and pollution of the city. Within this third type of counterurbanisation, as Mitchell (2004) states, it is possible to identify three variants: the ‘back to the land movement’ involving the quest for a radical lifestyle; the search for alternative employment and ways of living in smaller communities and amenity-driven retirement migration. These mobility types debated in this chapter, together with the trigger factors and coping strategies seem to fall  – even if not in a clear-cut manner  – into the displaced-­ urbanization defined by Mitchell (2004), meaning that they were mainly motivated by the pressures of the economic crisis. Notwithstanding the value of the previous interpretations, it is also worth placing the discussion on the relocation movements triggered by the economic crisis, as Gkartzios et  al. (2017) recommend, on mobilities other than counterurbanisation (such as, as indicated by the authors, transient, non uni-directional movements, beyond urban and rural dichotomies). This need arises from the fact (also stressed by Mitchell 2004) that counterurbanisation, originally an Anglo-American concept, has created a “‘counterurbanisation imperative’ in the way this academic discourse is reproduced across non Anglophone countries” (Gkartzios et al. 2017: 23). This may pose “significant challenges, particularly in countries where the rural idyll (…) does not constitute such a dominant discourse in both policy prescription and

7 ‘No Choice’ or ‘A Choice’? – An Exploratory Analysis of ‘Back…

125

popular culture, as it does in Anglo-American contexts” (idem, ibidem) as the authors state is the case of Greece, and as Soares da Silva et al. (2016) have demonstrated to be the case of Portugal. While mobility research appears to have become an important field within rural studies (Camarero et al. 2012; Gkartzios et al. 2017; Hedberg and Carmo 2012; Milbourne and Kitchen 2014; Silva and Cardoso 2017), studies taking the context of the financial and economic crisis are still scarce, particularly in Portugal, as previously mentioned. As again Gkartzios et al. (2017) and Silva and Cardoso (2017) state, recent research shows extremely diverse situations regarding the effects of the crisis, as while some studies mainly concentrate on counterurbanisation movements mostly shaped by poverty and unemployment contexts, further analysis and comparison are needed to reveal other types of rural mobilities, their motivations and consequences. Recognizing the previously mentioned need, a few authors have sought to use broader approaches to address mobilities in times of crisis. For instance, Anthopoulou et al. (2017) analyse the narratives of farmers and incomers in two rural areas in Greece in order to unveil their adaptation (and resilience) strategies regarding the crisis, revealing that unemployment and general economic deprivation are the main reasons behind both strategies of remaining and returning to the countryside. Koutsou and Botsiou (2017) investigated young people’s response to the Ministry’s measure to attract young farmers, providing them with public land. More recently Anthopoulou et al. (2019) analysed the different pathways of people returning from cities to villages, as well as their housing and social living conditions, revealing that going back to the rural without accompanying social support policies leads to the re-proletarianization of households and in other words to the transformation of urban to rural poverty. Also regarding Greece, Gkartzios (2013), Gkartzios et  al. (2017) and Remoundou et al. (2016) studied the back to the countryside mobilities caused by the crisis, highlighting unemployment and poverty but also social insecurity, political instability and the fear of urban violence as the triggers for the relocation. Silva and Cardoso (2017) in one of the few studies about the effects of the crisis in rural areas in Portugal, and taking just the case of the inhabitants of a particular village in the northern part of the country, conclude that the strategies for coping with the crisis (e.g. emigration, pluriactivity) were mainly of an individual and family nature. The authors also stress the significant role of family in these strategies and in the individual’s capability for persistence and resilience. In fact, as especially Anthopoulou et al. (2017), Koutsou and Botsiou (2017) and Gkartzios (2013) stress, the reactivation of family (and social) networks in the countryside is at the core of many relocation processes. These networks and ties were cultivated throughout the period of rural emigration and have significantly facilitated the return to the countryside in times of crisis. As a culturally and historically embedded practice, found in other Southern European countries (Alesina and Giuliano 2007; Anthopoulou et  al. 2017; Castles and Ferrera 1996; Figueiredo et  al. 2019; Gkartzios 2013; Koutsou et al. 2011), family and the extended network of relatives are still providing for their own, in terms of informal welfare support. As Figueiredo et al. (2019) mention, the role of family in counterurbanisation narratives is relevant, either due to the

126

E. Figueiredo et al.

fact that in some cases people returned to their village of origin, to work on the family farm, or, in other cases, due to the direct importance which family members had in the decision to move. Family ties, as Anthopoulou et  al. (2017) stress, in many cases also made access to affordable housing and food provision possible.3

7.4  Methodology Following the previous discussion, this chapter intends to contribute to shedding some light on the mobilities triggered by the economic crisis with a comparison of the Greek and Portuguese cases. As previously mentioned, it is not possible to know the exact number of people in both countries that have moved to rural areas in recent years, particularly as a direct consequence of the economic and financial crisis. This is due to the lack of official statistical data and due to the scarcity of studies dealing with this subject, particularly in Portugal. Therefore, it is not possible to know their motivations and adaptation strategies in a sound, quantitative and representative manner. Additionally, as the processes of relocation in the countryside are generally marked by emotions and (frequently) by difficult decisions, a case-study qualitative approach seemed more adequate to unveil people’s stories, motivations and strategies. Furthermore, the intention was not to be able to generalise results, but rather to understand particular cases and stories more thoroughly. Therefore the research draws on qualitative, semi-structured, in depth-interviews with 24 persons that decided to leave urban areas and move to (or start a business in) rural areas in Greece and in Portugal in the years following the recent financial and economic crisis, even if their initial motivation was not directly related to that crisis. Interviewees were selected through contact with some agriculture-related offices both in Greece and in Portugal. As may be observed in Table 7.1, 14 interviews were done with people that had relocated to various parts of the Macedonian Region, in northern Greece. Of these, only 4 did not have any previous connection with the relocation villages. Ten interviews were conducted with former urban dwellers currently living in different rural areas of the northern and central parts of Portugal. Of these, only 3 have previous relationships in the relocation villages. As Table 7.1 shows, the Greek interviewees are aged between 23 and 59 years old. Eight are male and six are female. Most of them are married and have children. Ten completed high school, three graduated from university and one holds a PhD. Many of them (11) moved from Thessaloniki to various villages in the northern region of Greece, three from Athens and one from Nicosia, Cyprus. 12 interviewees in Greece are currently working in agriculture-­ related activities: four are organic farmers, six are conventional farmers, and two are cattle breeders. Of these, seven are benefiting from the European Union Programme

3  Especially in the case of young neo-poor urbanites, the rural family has been providing at least housing conditions for the next step towards their re-establishment (Anthopoulou et al. 2019).

59 47 33 45 46 38 40 57 41 33 52

23

F M M F M M M F F M F

G14 Thessaloniki 2013 M

Single

Divorced Married Cohabiting Divorced Single Married Married Married Married Divorced Married

Athens Edessa Thessaloniki Edessa Nicosia Thessaloniki Thessaloniki Athens Thessaloniki Thessaloniki Thessaloniki

G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10 G11 G12 G13

2010 2009 2014 2010 2015 2013 2014 2009 2013 2015 2008

Marital Moved from Year Sex Age status Thessaloniki 2010 M 52 Married Athens 2008 F 37 Married

ID G1 G2

Literacy level Profession High school Organic farmer Graduate Rural tourism entrepreneur High school Organic farmer High school Farmer High school Farmer High school Cattle breeder Graduate Organic farmer Graduate Farmer High school Farmer PhD Organic farmer High school Farmer High school Farmer High school Rural tourism entrepreneur High school Cattle breeder

Table 7.1  Characteristics of the interviewees in Greece

Independent worker

Independent worker Independent worker Independent worker Independent worker Independent worker Independent worker Independent worker Independent worker Independent worker Independent worker Independent worker

Professional status Independent worker Independent worker

Yes

No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No

Enrolled in Young Farmers’ programme No No

0

0 2 0 1 0 2 2 2 2 0 2

Children 3 3

7 ‘No Choice’ or ‘A Choice’? – An Exploratory Analysis of ‘Back… 127

128

E. Figueiredo et al.

for Young Farmers. The remaining two interviewees are rural tourism entrepreneurs. All of the Greek interviewees are independent workers. Table 7.2 displays the characteristics of the ten interviewees in Portugal. They are between 30 and 49 years old, mainly cohabiting and married and have children. The majority are male. Eight have a university degree and two completed high school. Five of the Portuguese interviewees moved from Lisbon to various villages in the inland part of the country, two from Coimbra, one from Oporto, one from Pombal and one from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Five are currently working in agriculture-­related activities: four are organic farmers and one is a beekeeper. Of these, four are enrolled in the Young Farmers’ Programme. Of the remaining three interviewees, one has a restaurant and two are rural tourism entrepreneurs. Nine of the ten interviewees in Portugal are independent workers and one is an employee at a large international company. The interview script was divided into five main parts: (i) devoted to the life before moving; (ii) dedicated to the decision to move; (iii) referring to the life after moving; (iv) regarding the future; and (v) collecting sociodemographic data. The interviews took place between December 2017 and January 2018, in Greece, and between February and April 2018, in Portugal. In Greece, interviews were conducted in English, in a few cases with the help of a translator. In Portugal, interviews were conducted in Portuguese. All the interviews were recorded and later transcribed. The content of the interviews was analysed qualitatively, following the main topics of the script and focusing on the narratives of the interviewees and their life stories before and after the relocation process.

7.5  R  esults and Discussion – Back to the Countryside Motivations and Adaptation Strategies The narratives collected reveal a diversity of motivations regarding relocation to the countryside, in line with the conclusions of Gkartzios (2013), Kasimis and Zografakis (2012), and Remoundou et  al. (2016). However, they can be grouped into two main sets of motivations, using Mitchell’s (2004) categories or types of counterbanisation. None of the interviewees fall into the anti-urbanization category, with the majority (especially in the Greek case) being related to the displaced-­ urbanization type and a few in the ex-urbanization group. In fact, 15 out of 24 (10 out 14 in Greece and 5 out of 10 in Portugal) interviewees relocated to the countryside mainly due to unemployment or precarious work and salary conditions in the cities. The remaining nine interviewees’ reasons for moving back or relocating were mainly to seek experience with alternative lifestyles, even if in some cases the economic crisis triggered that desire. In the first case, urban unemployment was often the main motivation for relocation (as also pointed out by Anthopoulou et al. 2017; Gkartzios 2013 and Remoundou et al. 2016) particularly related to a narrative of ‘no

2012 M

2010 M

Coimbra

Lisbon

Coimbra

Lisbon

Lisbon

Oporto

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10 Lisbon

2016 M

2015 F

2013 M

2013 M

2012 M

2008 M 2017 F

Riyadh Pombal

P2 P3

39

39

46

37

45

35

30

49 35

Married

Cohabiting

Cohabiting

Married

Cohabiting

Married

Single

Single Cohabiting

Marital Year Sex Age status 2014 M 37 Married

Moved from Lisbon

ID P1

Profession Rural tourism entrepreneur Geographer Trainee

Organic farmer

Rural tourism entrepreneur Organic farmer

Organic farmer

Organic farmer

High school Restaurant owner

Graduate

Graduate

Graduate

Graduate

Graduate

High school Beekeeper

Graduate Graduate

Literacy level Graduate

Table 7.2  Characteristics of the interviewees in Portugal Professional status Independent worker Employee Independent worker Independent worker Independent worker Independent worker Independent worker Independent worker Independent worker Independent worker

1 2 1

Yes No

1

2

1

0

0 0

Children 0

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No No

Enrolled in Young Farmers’ programme No

7 ‘No Choice’ or ‘A Choice’? – An Exploratory Analysis of ‘Back… 129

130

E. Figueiredo et al.

choice’ or ‘no alternative’ apart from seeking refuge and support in the villages and on family farms: The company where I was working and the company where my wife was working… they both closed. So, we had no job. All the part-time jobs I had after that… they didn’t give me enough money… there was not enough to live. So, it was not a choice we made, we were forced by the situation. (G9, 40 years old, male, returned to the family farm in 2014) I had no permanent job there, just some work in the summer and it was very difficult to pay the rent. It was a difficult decision, but I had no choice. It was a difficult decision because I knew there were no jobs here as well, but my family was here, and I don’t have to pay the rent. (G7, 49 years old, male, returned to the family farm in 2015) Our intention was to stay there in the long run, to go there in a difficult phase in Lisbon in which the very economic crisis played a relevant role. Our idea was to escape the difficulties of that phase. (P1, 37 years old, male, relocated to a village without any previous connection in 2014, moved back to Lisbon in 2017) I started to be out of work and decided to restart everything in this village that always attracted me, despite having no connections here. (P10, 39 years old, male, relocated to a village without any previous connection in 2010)

Besides unemployment situations, the increasingly precarious nature of urban employment conditions also triggered the relocation to the countryside, as life in the city became increasingly difficult: The life in town was more difficult… the jobs… and then we had the children and it was difficult… The job was not going well, and I imagined that if I continued there it would be worse. (G8, 38 years old, male, farmer, returned to the family farm in 2013) The job was not so good, the money… it was little money and I didn’t have a lot of work… so I had to decide what to do with my job, my family, everything. So, my father asked me if I wanted to become a young farmer, that there was a programme to start. So, I decided to try. (G11, 31 years old, female, returned to the family farm in 2013) I had a situation in the place where I was working… that propelled my wish to quit. And I did it. I saw a job advertised on the internet to work in a rural hotel, I applied and within one week I moved here. (P3, 35 years old, female, moved to a village without any previous connections in 2017) I started doing the maths and I saw I could not continue… and I was less enthusiastic about what I was studying [construction engineering] as with the crisis the construction stopped… then I started to think about the idea… and me and my father sat at the table and we came to the conclusion that the best was to embrace this activity [beekeeping] and try to expand it. (P4, 30 years old, male, returned to the family farm in 2012)

For some interviewees (as also reported by Anthopoulou et  al. 2019, Gkartzios 2013, Remoundou et al. 2016, and Koutsou and Botsiou 2017) unemployment, precarious work conditions and the general urban economic situation were combined in the decision to relocate, with the perception of better opportunities in rural locations. Some of these opportunities were materialised by enrolling in the Young Farmers’ Programme (European Union), others by continuing the parents’ farming activity and others by starting a new business or career: I was keeping the store alone, but it started falling anyway and with the big hit of the crisis nobody had money to spend on comic books. Of course, the first thing that you stop with in a crisis is hobbies (…). So, we started here with the tomatoes, we had 150 varieties, it was amazing because we had a variety of colours…. Orange, yellow… some red, bicolour…! (G1, 46 years old, female, moved to a village without any previous connections in 2011, although already owning a house there)

7 ‘No Choice’ or ‘A Choice’? – An Exploratory Analysis of ‘Back…

131

I had wanted to be a farmer since I was 18, because I knew that the job market was not so good as everything was touched by the crisis. So I decided to become a farmer, mainly a sheep breeder. (G14, 23 years old, male, moved in 2013 to a village in which their parents already possess a house and some land, although they do not live there) So… we decided to see… to pass that cycle of the crisis… because afterwards we were heading for a good phase and we would have the opportunity to buy land at affordable prices because the market was hitting the floor. And that was what exactly happened to us… and we knew that there was European Union support for these type of projects… we had to work a lot, but we have that support. (P5, 35 years old, male, moved to a village without any previous connections in 2013) The job I was doing in Lisbon ended, due to the crisis, and I was looking for a new opportunity… so the crisis was the trigger, although I already knew for a long time that I was tired of life in the city. (P8, 46 years old, male, moved to a village without previous connections in 2016)

As suggested before, not all the interviewees relocated to the countryside for direct crisis-related reasons. For some of them the relocation was mainly motivated by personal or family choices (in line with Anthopoulou et  al. 2019 and Gkartzios 2013) related to the search for a new lifestyle, although in some cases they started a new business because of the consequences of the crisis: It was a deep need of mine… It was a thought that crossed my mind that day and I decided immediately without thinking further … maybe it was something… I felt that I lost some of my roots (…). I felt everything was uncertain and maybe I was looking for some certainties, something more stable… I don’t know (…). (G3, 59 years old, female, returned to the family farm in 2005, starting her own business in 2010) One day my husband made the proposal to move to the countryside and I accepted this proposal (…). I wanted to change my quality of life. I wanted to become connected with nature, with the simple things, have a different life (…). I believe that… I realised it later, but I believe that I was born to live here, to have guests, to do this. (G2, 37 years old, female, moved to a village without previous connections in 2005 but started the business in 2008) We wanted to buy a farm and to have our vegetable garden and do something for nature conservation. And we wanted to do it to leave something different to our daughter, that was not an apartment in the city. (P7, 37 years old, female, moved to a village without any previous connections in 2015) People sometimes say ‘you were brave in abandoning your job’, moreover we were also happy in Porto and we had a stable job… so it was not a financial reason… But it is not a matter of bravery… it is a matter of following our path in life. (39 years old, male, relocated to the family farm in 2012)

The previous narratives and situations also suggest that there are at least two types of relocation dynamics, following the findings of Anthopoulou et  al. (2017) and Gkartzios (2013). The first type, most common amongst the Greek interviewees, refers to those that left the rural community to live in the city and have returned, mainly following the crisis and unemployment. The second type concerns the newcomers without family origins or other previous connections with rural communities, most common amongst the Portuguese interviewees and especially with those that seek an alternative lifestyle in the countryside. This evidence reinforces the complex and multidimensional nature of the (crisis-related or not) counterurbanisation movements, as suggested by Anthopoulou et  al. (2017), Gkartzios (2013), Gkartzios et  al. (2017), Halfacree (2008), Kasimis and Zografakis (2012), Remoundou et al. (2016), Silva and Cardoso (2017).

132

E. Figueiredo et al.

The previous discussion and findings are also related to the interviewees’ adaptation strategies to the relocation contexts. The data reveals three diverse types of adaptation situations: the successful, the ones still struggling to succeed and the regretful. The first type relates to the ones that have succeed in relocating and, therefore, want to stay in the countryside. They are part of the ‘successful’ cases mostly reported by the media (Hilmi and Burbi 2016): I like it here, I make money… so, I still think this was the right decision. I have improved the fields and the crops, I have made a lot of investments, I have planted a lot of trees, so I want to produce more and continue to be a farmer. (G4, 47 years old, male, returned in 2008 to the family farm) It is totally different… life has changed so much! It is a different kind of happy… of happiness (…). I see ourselves here for a long time. (G1, 46 years old, female, moved to a village without any previous connections in 2011, although already owning a house there) Here I am free, I am happy, I am not stressed as I was before and I am not always concerned about money. (G8, 38 years old, male, returned to the family farm in 2013) I am proud of what I accomplished here, I built something and I feel accomplished. (P6, 45 years old, male, started a business in the family farm in 2013)

The second type of adaptation strategies includes those that, although wishing to stay in the village, are still struggling to adjust to the countryside and (perhaps mainly) to start or to maintain a business and/or a new professional occupation: I have a goal to achieve in organic production, experimenting with new seeds and new ways of producing, so I want to stay here and improve my activity even if I did not succeed until now. (G7, 49 years old, male, returned to the family farm in 2015) I don’t know. I am fifty-fifty. Because when I started, things were different. The programme… it is a 10-year programme… so I had 5 years to grow tobacco on my land and the other 5 years I have to continue… and when I started they said a different thing to us. As time passes, they present more difficulties within the programme and in general and it is too much for us. (G11, 31 years old, female, returned to the family farm in 2013) We do not want to come back to the city. Here I value time, I feel that time is different here. We have time for everything and we use time in a completely different way. (…) So, in the future I see myself here, doing what we are trying to do now, with the vegetable garden, with the animals, having more activities to get some profit… but we are doing it little by little. (P7, 37 years old, female, moved to a village without any previous connections in 2015) I think I took the right decision although the last years have been frustrating due to the divergence between the income we expected at first and the income we had… but I still think we had to move on and seek better future conditions. (P4, 30 years old, male, returned to the family farm in 2012)

The third type of situation concerns the regretful, in other words the interviewees that were not able to succeed in their new activities or to cope with the rural way of living, and therefore aim to return (and in some cases are returning) to the city when the opportunity presents: With all the difficulties I had encountered I have to admit that I would like to return to the city… and perhaps I will end up doing it. It would be an extreme decision but here I cannot find anything. (G12, 33 years old, male, returned to the family farm in 2015) This was a wrong decision. Because I had a great time in the city. Both the quality of life and the job I had… were better in the city. If I still could have the job I had in the city, I

7 ‘No Choice’ or ‘A Choice’? – An Exploratory Analysis of ‘Back…

133

would return. I was forced to come here because I lost my job (…). I think about going back lots of times…. (G9, 40 years old, male, returned to the family farm in 2014) We adapted the house during almost three years and during those three years we were like ‘punch bags’, we had too much work and we didn’t earn much (…). We have learned a lot about ourselves, so, as an experience… it was something extremely rich (…). In the future I see myself still living in Lisbon. (P1, 37  years old, male, relocated to a village without any previous connection in 2014, moved back to Lisbon in 2017)

It is interesting to note that the success stories, struggling and regret are independent of the interviewees’ enrolment in supporting programmes. While for some this support was crucial to achieve success, for others the need to comply with the regulations and goals of the programmes represented an additional factor of struggle or regret. In some cases – mainly regarding the interviewees who are still struggling and the regretful, adaptation to the countryside was not easy. This concerns both those that have returned to the family farms and properties and the newcomers. Although in a few cases this was due to an anti-rural perspective (meaning that the return was caused by a ‘no alternative’ situation), in most of the cases adaptation difficulties were due to the rural context itself and to the frequent mismatch between the interviewees’ initial expectations and the (lack of) dynamics they encountered in the villages. This mismatch was either related to scarce capacity of local organization or to the hostile social context. In Greece, the emphasis is mainly placed on the difficulty of setting up forms of cooperation with the local and long-established farmers, as well as on the competitive atmosphere the newcomers encountered: I want to found a small cooperative to sell our potatoes. I would like others to be interested in planting walnut trees and other species that are good for this area, but the others don’t want to innovate, they are still doing the same as their grandparents and parents…. (G8, 38 years old, male, farmer, returned to the family farm in 2013) When I moved to the village I encountered some problems, due to conflicts with other sheep breeders that saw a competitor in me, as we rented large fields. (G14, 23 years old, male, moved in 2013 to a village in which their parents already possess a house and some land, although they don’t live there)

In Portugal, the narratives concerning the adaptation difficulties are centred around a hostile – and not at all idyllic from the social point of view – countryside: We caused a dramatic reaction in the village… in the village people that did not like us because we were not from here. (…) All this generated many problems at the personal level, including with the local parish. The president of the parish is constantly after us. From complaints about our dogs to calling Municipality services because we are doing some planting… we have experienced everything. (P7, 37 years old, female, moved to a village without any previous connections in 2015) I had some problems with the parish president, since I opposed the placement of a telecommunications antenna in the castle by a telecommunications company. I have a lawsuit from him now, because I want to preserve the village and they just want to make some profit. (P10, 39  years old, male, relocated to a village without any previous connection in 2010)

It is also important to stress the significant role of family in the interviewees’ narratives which highlights and adds to the discussion on the resilient countryside, due to family property and networks of relatives. In fact, family ties or family decisions

134

E. Figueiredo et al.

may be found at the basis of the majority of the interviewees’ motivations to relocate. Family acted as the main anchor of support in times of crisis, in both countries, reinforcing the persistence of more solid family bonds in Southern Europe (Alesina and Giuliano 2007; Anthopoulou et al. 2017; Castles and Ferrera 1996; Figueiredo et al. 2019; Gkartzios 2013; Koutsou et al. 2011). Family members were often presented in the interviewees’ narratives as the catalysers of the decision and as the caregivers in the context of the family farms or properties, providing the land, the housing and in some cases economic support during the difficult times.

7.6  Main Conclusions This chapter focused on the effects of the economic and financial crisis that particularly affected Southern European countries from 2008 onwards, especially Greece and Portugal in which the consequences of the crisis induced severe deterioration of the living conditions of many individuals and families, particularly those affected by unemployment and precarious work conditions. Besides the severe consequences of the crisis, Greece and Portugal share some common characteristics related to the transformations of rural areas and agricultural activities that have led to processes of rural abandonment and decline in both countries. As noted, amidst the devastating social and economic collapse, agriculture showed some growing trends during the crisis, particularly associated with an increasing in jobs (Hilmi and Burbi 2016). Although it is not possible to establish a linear relation, to a certain extent this evidence sustained the political and media narratives on the back to the countryside movements that often portrayed the rural as idyllic, resilient and as a refuge in times of crisis, full of employment opportunities in agriculture and tourism-related businesses (e.g. Anthopoulou et al. 2017). These narratives directly oppose the discourse on the urban contexts which were frequently most severely affected by the effects of the crisis. As shown in the third section of this chapter, counterurbanisation movements – even in crisis contexts – are rather diverse whether in terms of motivations or in terms of adaptation strategies (Figueiredo et al. 2019; Gkartzios 2013; Gkartzios et al. 2017; Halfacree 2008; Kasimis and Zografakis 2012; Remoundou et al. 2016). Even if many of the crisis motivated back to the land movements are qualified as displaced-urbanization (Mitchell 2004), mainly due to the pressures of the economic crisis, it is difficult to define those movements as crisis-counterurbanisation ones, as different motivations and strategies intertwine. Despite the exploratory nature and the limitations posed by the number of cases considered, the empirical data presented in the previous sections concerning the stories of 24 individuals (and their families) that have moved or relocated to rural areas in Greece and Portugal following the economic crisis clearly demonstrates that current counterurbanisation movements are imbued with diversity. The interviewees’ stories also demonstrate that the decision to relocate was not always directly related to the economic effects of the crisis, reinforcing the complex and

7 ‘No Choice’ or ‘A Choice’? – An Exploratory Analysis of ‘Back…

135

multidimensional nature of the (crisis-related or not) counterurbanisation movements. In fact, the narratives of both Greek and Portuguese interviewees reveal a wide set of relocation types, based on a complex and intricate myriad of motivations and reflecting a diversity of adaptation strategies, as well as suggesting a variety of impacts on different rural communities. Interviewees pointed out different motivations from individual and family choice to ‘no choice’ or ‘no alternative’ situations in which they were forced to abandon the city and to seek refuge in the countryside and, in many cases, on family farms. The activation of previous rural and, especially, family networks were extremely relevant either due to the fact that in many cases people returned to their village of origin to work on the family farm, or due to the direct importance which family members had in the decision to move. The multiple forms of family support (ranging from providing access to affordable housing and land to food provision) unveiled by the narratives, seem to be connected with the already mentioned solid family ties still present in Southern European countries (e.g. Alesina and Giuliano 2007; Anthopoulou et al. 2017, 2019; Castles and Ferrera 1996; Figueiredo et al. 2019; Gkartzios 2013; Koutsou et al. 2011). At the core of the motivations of the majority of the interviewees to move or to go back to the countryside there are, as discussed in the previous section, stories of unemployment and precarious work conditions and salaries that are disclosed by the ‘no alternative’ narratives. These aspects were key determinants among those (mainly Greek) that clearly point out the economic crisis as the propeller of the decision as well as among those (coincident in a number of cases) that have returned to the family farms. For many interviewees these narratives of ‘no choice’ intertwine with the perception of better opportunities in rural locations, following the paths of the media and political discourses, as well as with a stronger family connection, expressed in the availability of family land. Many interviewees in both countries have enrolled in the Younger Farmers Programs frequently reported as an option to the crisis effects. Others had the prospect (later materialised, in many cases) to start a new business or career, which is in line with the findings of Anthopoulou et  al. (2017), Gkartzios (2013) and Remoundou et  al. (2016). Narratives on amenity-counterurbanisation or the quest for alternative lifestyle were the most relevant factor regarding the interviewees who do not directly relate the decision to relocate to economic difficulties, but rather to a personal or family choice whether triggered by the crisis or not. These narratives are mainly from the newcomers, without family origins or other previous connections with rural communities and are most common amongst the Portuguese interviewees, as seen in the third and fourth sections. Very often, the perception of the rural as an idyllic place, closer to the nature and safer, underlined the decision of this group of interviewees whilst sometimes being revealed as a myth. The findings also point to a diversity of adaptation strategies. As discussed in the previous section, the data reveals three distinct types of adaptation situations: the successful, the ones still struggling to succeed and the regretful. The first type concerns the ones that have indeed succeed in relocating and want to stay in the countryside. They are part of the success stories mostly conveyed by media narratives (Hilmi and Burbi 2016). The second type includes those that, even though they wish

136

E. Figueiredo et al.

to stay, are still struggling to adapt to the countryside and to the new business or professional occupation. The third type of situations regards those that were not able to succeed either in adapting to rural life or to the new activities. In some situations, they wish to return to the city when the opportunity presents. Those adaptation strategies do not seem to be directly connected to the engagement in particular activities and/or to the enrolling in official supporting programmes. In fact, while for some the support was crucial to success, for others it represented an additional factor of struggle or regret. These cases reveal difficulties in adapting to village life, whether (in a few cases) due to an anti-rural perspective or (more often) to discrepancies between the initial expectations related to rural idyll conceptions and the social and institutional dynamics encountered in the villages. Notwithstanding the high diversity of situations and narratives, the return to the countryside so extensively celebrated in the political and media discourses (e.g. Anthopoulou et al. 2017; Figueiredo 2019; Figueiredo et al. 2019) seems mainly to encompass the successful situations. These success stories are mainly of those – although with some exceptions – that moved to the countryside in search of a different lifestyles and quality of life and succeeded in adapting (e.g. Anthopoulou et al. 2017; Gkartzios 2013), or of those that thrived in agriculture. As Anthopoulou et al. (2017) note referring to Greece, it should not be forgotten that the countryside was also affected by the hardships of the economic crisis. In both Greece and Portugal, severe measures of austerity were in place leading to the adoption of contraction strategies (e.g. in health care, educational services or social support) that resulted in dramatic consequences for rural areas, especially the most fragile ones, which were already in crisis. This may also explain some stories of failure and/or struggle in adapting to the countryside from the returnees and the newcomers. These difficulties, especially related to health care and educational services, together with the lack of accessibility, are underlined by the interviewees when referring to the hardships of living in the countryside. Nevertheless, almost all the interviewees in both countries – even those that have encountered integration difficulties – presented the rural as a better place to be in times of crisis. Some refer to the lower cost of living, others to the facility in starting a business or finding a job in a depopulated and declining area, while others refer to the availability of land and to the possibility of growing their own food. Comparing with the economic situation and the quality of living in the urban areas, the rural seems therefore – despite the problems faced – to act as a place of refuge. The findings discussed in this chapter suggest that rural areas, in both Greece and Portugal act(ed), even if temporarily, as places of refuge and as places open to all sorts of transformations and opportunities (in line with the conclusions of Anthopoulou et al. 2017; Gkartzios et al. 2017; Hilmi and Burbi 2016). Despite the interest and relevance of the analysis of the role returnees may play in those transformations, further examination of the narratives is still needed in relation to the diversity of the relocation rural communities. Although we share the recognition presented by Anthopoulou et al. (2017) and Gkartzios et al. (2017) that counterurbanisation movements motivated by the economic crisis may not be generalized, especially when  – as is the case  – empirical evidence is limited, we have found similarities

7 ‘No Choice’ or ‘A Choice’? – An Exploratory Analysis of ‘Back…

137

between the Greek and the Portuguese cases which may contribute to shedding additional light on these movements, especially in a scarcely researched field.

References Alesina A, Giuliano P (2007) The power of the family. Institute for the study of labor discussion paper no 2750. Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp2750.pdf. (18/09/2019) Anthopoulou T, Kaberis N, Petrou M (2017) Aspects and experiences of crisis in rural Greece. Narratives of rural resilience. J Rural Stud 52:1–11 Anthopoulou T, Partalidou M, Kourachanis N (2019) Ηidden homelessness and poverty trajectories in rural areas: stories of crisis counterurbanization in Greece. Επιθεώρηση Κοινωνικών Ερευνών 152:229–256 Bock B (2013) Foreword. In: Proceedings of XXVth Congress of the European Society for Rural Sociology: Rural Resilience and Vulnerability: the Rural as Locus of Solidarity and Conflict in Times of Crisis. Retrieved from http://www.florenceesrs2013.com/wpcontent/ uploads/2013/08/ESRS2013_eProceedings_final.pdf. (24/08/2017) Camarero L, Sampedro R, Oliva J (2012) Foreigners, neighbours, immigrants: translocal mobilities in rural areas in Spain. In: Hedberg C, Carmo RM (eds) Translocal ruralism. Mobility and connectivity in European rural spaces. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 143–162 Capello R, Caragliu A, Fratesi U (2015) Spatial heterogeneity in the costs of the economic crisis in Europe: are cities sources of regional resilience? J Econ Geogr 15(5):951–972 Castles FG, Ferrera M (1996) Home ownership and the welfare state: is southern Europe different? South Eur Soc Polit 1(2):163–185 Diprose K (2014) Resilience is futile: the cultivation of resilience is not an answer to austerity and poverty. Soundings 58:44–56 Eusébio C, Carneiro MJ, Kastenholz E, Figueiredo E, Soares da Silva D (2017) Who is consuming the countryside? An activity-based segmentation analysis of the domestic rural tourism market in Portugal. J Hosp Tour Manag 31:197–210 Figueiredo E (2013) McRural, no rural or what rural? – some reflections on rural reconfiguration processes based on the promotion of Schist Villages Network, Portugal. In: Silva L, Figueiredo E (eds) Shaping rural areas in Europe – perceptions and outcomes on the present and the future. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 129–146 Figueiredo E (2016) Thinking beyond the buzzword: why, how and for whom to shape resilient communities? Paper presented at the First Training Session of the Project Susplace  – Sustainable place-shaping, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, 3 May Figueiredo E (2019) Back to the authentic and good life? Between political and media narratives and the experience of rural incomers in times of crisis, in Greece and Portugal. Paper presented at the XXVIII European Society for Rural Sociology conference – Rural Futures in a Complex World, Trondheim, Norway Figueiredo E, Partalidou M, Koutsou S (2019) «It’s a different kind of happy»  – Narratives on the ‘back to the countryside’ motivations and strategies in times of crisis: a comparison between Greece and Portugal. In: Libro de Atas del XII Congreso Iberoamericano de Estudios Rurales – Territorios Globales. Ruralidades Diversas, Segóvia, AEEA – Asociación Española de Economía Agraria, pp 539–542 Fingleton B, Garretsen H, Martin R (2015) Shocking aspects of monetary union: the vulnerability of regions in Euro land. J Econ Geogr 15(5):907–934 Galani-Moutafi V (2013) Rural space (re) produced–practices, performances and visions: a case study from an Aegean island. J Rural Stud 32:103–113 Giannakis E, Bruggeman A (2017) Determinants of regional resilience to economic crisis: an European perspective. Eur Plan Stud 25(8):1394–1415

138

E. Figueiredo et al.

Gkartzios M (2013) Leaving Athens: narratives of counterurbanisation in times of crisis. J Rural Stud 32:158–167 Gkartzios M, Remoundou K, Garrod G (2017) Emerging geographies of mobility: the role of regional towns in Greece’s ‘counterurbanisation story’. J Rural Stud 55:22–32 Goussios D (2011) Le regain de l’intérêt du secteur agricole en Grèce: Tendance lourde ou passagère? Edited by The Mission Agrobiosciences. Retrieved from http://www.agrobiosciences. org/IMG/pdf/Reaction_Goussios_agriculture_grecque_Juin_2011.pdf. (30/01/19) Halfacree K (2006) Rural space: constructing a three-fold architecture. In: Cloke P, Marsden T, Mooney PH (eds) Handbook of rural studies. Sage, London, pp 133–148 Halfacree K (2008) To revitalise counterurbanisation research? Recognising an international and fuller picture. Popul Space Place 14:479–495 Hedberg C, Carmo RM (2012) Translocal ruralism. Mobility and connectivity in European rural spaces. In: Hedberg C, Carmo RM (eds) Translocal ruralism. Mobility and connectivity in European rural spaces. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–12 Hilmi A, Burbi S (2016) Peasant farming: a refuge in times of crises. Development 59(3):229–236 Holmes J (2006) Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in rural Australia: gaps in the research agenda. J Rural Stud 22:142–160 Kasimis C, Papadopoulos AG (2013) Rural transformations and family farming in contemporary Greece. In: Ortiz-Miranda D, Moragues-Faus A, Arnalte-Alegre E (eds) Agriculture in Mediterranean Europe: between old and new paradigms. Emerald, Bingley, pp 263–293 Kasimis C, Zografakis S (2012) ‘Return to the land’: rural Greece as refuge to crisis. Paper presented at the XIII world congress of rural sociology, July 29 to august 4. Lisbon, Portugal, p 2012 Koutsou S, Botsiou M (2017) Installation de jeunes agriculteurs sur des terres publiques en Grèce: enjeux et limites. In: Paoli J-C (coord) La petite exploitation agricole méditerranéenne, une réponse en temps de crise. Options Méditerranéennes 117:129–140 Koutsou S, Partalidou M, Petrou M (2011) Present or absent farm heads? A contemporary reading of family farming in Greece. Sociologia Ruralis 51(4):404–419 Marsden T (1995) Beyond agriculture? Regulating the new rural spaces. J Rural Stud 11:285–296 Marsden T, Lowe P, Whatmore S (1990) Rural Reestructuring: global processes and their responses. David Fulton, London Milbourne P, Kitchen L (2014) Rural mobilities: connecting movement and fixity in rural places. J Rural Stud 34:326–336 Mitchell C (2004) Making sense of counterurbanisation. J Rural Stud 20:15–34 Oliveira Baptista F (2006) O rural depois da agricultura. In: Fonseca ML (ed) Desenvolvimento e Território – Espaços Rurais Pós-agrícolas e os Novos Lugares de Turismo e Lazer. Centro de Estudos Geográficos, Lisbon, pp 85–100 Ragkos A, Koutsou S, Manousidis T (2016) In search of strategies to face the economic crisis: evidence from Greek farms. South Eur Soc Polit 21(3):319–337 Remoundou K, Gkartzios M, Garrod G (2016) Conceptualizing mobility in times of crisis: towards crisis-led counterurbanization? Reg Stud 501(10):1663–1674 Santana P, Costa C, Cardoso C, Loureiro A, Ferrão J (2015) Suicide in Portugal: spatial determinants in a context of economic crisis. Health Place 35:85–94 Silva M, Cardoso A (2017) Crisis, and the impacts of crisis, on the inhabitants of rural space: the case of a village in North West Portugal. Cuadernos de Desarrollo Rural 14(79):1–23 Soares da Silva D, Figueiredo E (2014) To live or not to live in the rural, that is the question? What is driving Portuguese urban people to want to live in the countryside? Paper presented to the international conference Southern and Mediterranean Europe – Social Change, Challenges and Opportunities in a Time of Crisis, Évora, University of Évora Soares da Silva D, Figueiredo E, Eusébio C, Carneiro MJ (2016) The countryside is worth a thousand words? Portuguese representations on rural areas. J Rural Stud 44:77–88 Wilson GA, Burton R (2015) ‘Neo-productivist’ agriculture: Spatio-temporal versus structuralist perspectives. J Rural Stud 38:52–64

7 ‘No Choice’ or ‘A Choice’? – An Exploratory Analysis of ‘Back…

139

Elisabete Figueiredo  is a rural sociologist and Associate Professor with Habilitation at the Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences of the University of Aveiro. She is a Full research at GOVCOPP – research unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies at the same university. Her main research interests are on contrasting social representations of rural areas, traditional food products and rural development and rural tourism impacts. Maria Partalidou  is an Assistant Professor, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics, Laboratory of Rural Sociology and Agricultural Extension, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. Her research interest revolves around urban agriculture, gender and agriculture and the consequences of the financial and economic crisis in farming. She has participated in several EU and nationally funded research projects. Stavriani Koutsou  is a Professor at the International University of Greece, School of Agriculture and Director of the Laboratory of Rural Economic Research and Development. She is an agricultural socio-economist specialized in human geography in rural areas. Her scientific interests include transformation and evolution of rural societies, collective actions in rural areas and female entrepreneurship, rural development and the consequences of the economic crisis in farming.

Chapter 8

Transformative Mobilities and Resilience Dynamics in Rural Coastal Greece in a Time of Recession Apostolos G. Papadopoulos and Loukia-Maria Fratsea

8.1  Introduction Contemporary debates on rural development discuss rural areas as fluid places which cannot be seen in isolation from other areas and, most importantly, from urban areas. The stereotypical perceptions of rural areas as declining and problematic spaces are strongly contested by the evidence illustrating their vast diversity and significant potential for the EU economy and society (Perpiña Castillo et al. 2018: 12). More to the point, demographic and migration trends, the deployment of transport infrastructure, globalisation, the intensification of agricultural production, the abandonment of marginal lands, urban development, housing patterns, etc. are some of the factors which impact on the alleged stability of rural areas and create a complex picture for considering their dynamics. Additionally, it is common knowledge that rural residents are not a fixed category made up purely of a permanent population of farmers, fishermen or other groups traditionally associated with the local economy and society. Increasingly, non-indigenous population groups end up living in rural areas, simultaneously posing a number of issues for the particular locales. The main argument is that both urban and rural population groups interface in the rural domain (Pahl 1966; Paquette and Domon 2003; Mahon 2007), a neglected fact which, if researched more, would help us gain a better understanding of the socioeconomic dynamics involved (Lacour and Puissant 2007; Papadopoulos and Ouils 2014). While many rural places have witnessed significant turbulence connected to population movements (e.g. changes in housing and land markets) (Stockdale et  al. 2000) others seem to have seen their economies revitalized (Stockdale 2006; Fonseca 2008; Rye 2018). The rural is seen as an arena of intersecting and/or transformative mobilities interwoven with mobility and fixity, while the interaction A. G. Papadopoulos (*) · L.-M. Fratsea Department of Geography, Harokopio University, Athens, Greece e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 F. N. Döner et al. (eds.), Crisis and Post-Crisis in Rural Territories, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50581-3_8

141

142

A. G. Papadopoulos and L.-M. Fratsea

between various social groups and stakeholders poses new challenges for these areas. In this setting, economic development priorities and goals are redirected/ reconfigured on the basis of the various/mixed mobilities and the social groups enacting in each area. The interactions between different social groups, as well as their engagement in the local development processes are conducive to the rural development model promoted by social actors in an area. The recent economic recession of 2008/9 posed new challenges for rural and urban areas alike. Indeed, the recession had a severe impact, particularly in the southern European member states (Matsaganis and Leventi 2014). The implications of the crisis were particularly acute for Greece, which lost 26% of its GDP, where unemployment rose to 27.5% [in 2013] while youth unemployment exceeded 50% (OECD 2016: 20). Focusing on Greece, the social cost of the economic recession and the implementation of fiscal austerity measures and economic adjustment programs was particularly high. The risk of poverty and income inequality increased (Ketsetzopoulou 2017; Mitrakos 2018), while the labour insecurity and precariousness that characterise all southern European countries (Della Porta et al. 2015) is becoming a permanent characteristic of the Greek labour market, extending beyond particular forms of work (such as temporary employment, part-time employment, uninsured labour, etc.) and expanding far wider than the private sector (Karakioulafi et al. 2014). Nevertheless, the impact of the economic downturn varied between regions, urban/rural areas, and between different social groups (Hadjimichalis 2011; Psycharis et  al. 2014; Dijkstra et  al. 2015; Ketsetzopoulou 2017; Papadopoulos 2019). The main impact of the crisis and the recession has been a contraction in employment and severe cutbacks in the delivery of public services and pensions. In this context, recent research has shown that, in general, rural areas appear to have a higher degree of resilience to the implications of the crisis compared to the large urban centres (Artelaris 2017; Balourdos 2017; Papadopoulos et al. 2019), while the crisis has also had asymmetric effects on various social and age groups, social strata and led to new forms of poverty (Ketsetzopoulou 2017; Matsaganis et al. 2018). The pronounced social exclusion and poverty of rural areas in the pre-crisis period has, in the era of crisis/recession, transposed into social exclusion and poverty in rural areas, where it now relates to particular groups such as migrants, the ‘working poor’, precarious workers and so on (Papadopoulos et al. 2019). The exploration of the resilience concept has led to the emergence of a rural resilience approach that has gained momentum in the relevant literature (Scott 2013; Papadopoulos 2019). In fact, various spatial levels -community, rural, regionalwere considered appropriate for illustrating the adaptability of society to externally induced shocks (Hassink 2010; McManus et  al. 2012; Scott 2013; Wilson 2013; Martin and Sunley 2015; Evenhuis 2017). Three issues have remained central to any resilience approach since the early discussions: the relationship between resilience and vulnerability; the relationship between resilience and sustainability; and the ability of community/rural/regional systems to cope and/or respond to changes that come from the outside and challenge their systemic coherence and sustainability (Adger 2000). In this connection, resilience is closely linked to the potential of

8  Transformative Mobilities and Resilience Dynamics in Rural Coastal Greece…

143

local/rural development, although it is not evident, in the relevant literature, how far or in what way resilience connects with population movements and/or rural/urban interactions (Martin and Sunley 2015; Papadopoulos 2019). Focusing on coastal and island areas where rural/urban interactions are more explicit, the issue of resilience is of vast importance due to the various challenges these areas face (Karymbalis et al. 2014). Despite the significant diversity among coastal and island areas, which is recognised in the various attempts to construct typologies and taxonomies on the basis of agreed upon criteria (Spilanis et al. 2009; Tsilimigkas et al. 2016), these areas require a more in-depth study of the contextual parameters under consideration, which include sustainable development, sustainability, peripherality and marginality (Salvati 2013; Galani-Moutafi 2013; Karambela et al. 2017). When referring to islands in particular, the notion of attractiveness is useful for understanding temporal, spatial and even seasonal changes in population, product and service flows between places (Kizos 2007: 134). However, as may be expected, island attractiveness varies among different groups of dwellers. For permanent inhabitants, both insularity and attractiveness are non-seasonal and based on long experience, while for the group of newcomers (both seasonal and permanent), insularity and attractiveness are rather ‘symbolic’, influenced by seasonality and structured around antithetical concepts (Kizos 2007: 135). In this context, insularity includes a whole array of movers, quasi-movers and non-movers such as island-born non-migrants, internal migrants within an archipelago, emigrants who return regularly, returned migrants, tourists and visitors (ranging from short-stayers to long-stayers), immigrants from wealthy countries (including retirees), and immigrants from poor countries (both documented and irregular) (Leontidou and Marmaras 2001; King 2009). Therefore, the islands’ permanent social structure and seasonal social geographies (i.e. of migrants, tourists, stayers, etc.) should be seen as parallel/complementary rather than competing social realities (Leontidou and Marmaras 2001; Kizos 2007; King 2009). The main objective of this paper is to explore the dynamics of social groups/local stakeholders in two island communities (Syros and Andros) in the Aegean Sea, their resilience prospects during the economic crisis, and the challenges that they face when conceiving and realizing local development goals. The concept of ‘(im)mobilities’—referring to the various categories of (non)movers such as international migrants, internal migrants, (short and long) stayers, religious minorities (especially in Syros) and locals—is pivotal for deciphering the resilience dynamics in the two island communities. More importantly, the linkages between (im)mobilities, cosmopolitanism, and insularity are considered important for exploring the resilience dynamics in the two study areas. The remainder of the chapter is structured in three main parts: first, there is a brief theoretical discussion of the main conceptual framework enabled by the empirical findings. Next, there is an analysis of the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the two island areas, along with a discussion of new developments in reference to their economic recovery and development vision(s). Finally, the concluding section illustrates the emerging trajectories connected to the resilience dynamics on the two islands.

144

A. G. Papadopoulos and L.-M. Fratsea

8.2  T  ransformative Mobilities and Resilience Dynamics in Rural Areas We have argued elsewhere that “intra-regional and inter-regional mobilities and transformations reflect the interweaving of rural and urban characteristics in particular rural locales” (Kasimis and Papadopoulos 2013: 287), stating explicitly that mobilities have a transformative capacity due to their ability to co-produce (rural) space. The intensification of mobilities between rural and urban areas not only reinforces the disengagement of permanent rural residents from traditional employment patterns, it may also imply the engagement of ex-urbanites with employment/leisure tasks in the countryside. In this guise, ‘rurality’ seems to be reproduced, continuously, upon new characteristics, engaging anew both movers and stayers and rebalancing the production and consumption functions of the countryside. Rural areas are shaped by population mobilities and, more importantly, by out-­ migration/rural exodus of the younger generation, due to the limited employment opportunities outside the agricultural sector (Rees and Kupiszewski 1999; Champion 2001). This kind of mobility further undermines the viability of rural areas and their social cohesion. Another type of mobility relates to population flows heading into rural areas, subdivided into returning, mobile population/movers and in-migrants to rural areas. A third type includes mobility for work (economic migration), recreation or tourism and for seasonal stays in rural areas. In total, the different types of population movements (re)connect rural areas with urban areas, creating different scales of mobility, movements of varying degrees, and speeds and motions of movements between urban and rural areas (Milbourne 2007; Bell and Osti 2010). Rural mobilities research is directly related to the wider socio-economic and spatial transformations that impact upon rural places and on activities attached to these places, in turn giving emphasis to production and/or consumption (Halfacree and Boyle 1998; Halfacree 2009). The frequently used notions of ‘multifunctional agriculture’ and ‘multifunctional countryside’ refer to the mixing of productive and consumption activities at different spatial levels through the inclusion of infrastructure, leisure and environmental goods (Papadopoulos 2004; Slee 2005; McCarthy 2005; Woods 2007, 2009; Wilson 2010). The ways in which rural areas are viewed and conceptualized vary according to the users’ perspective (e.g. residence, work, visit, viewing from a distance) (Perkins 2006; Smith 2007; Mahon 2007), while different characteristics of rurality are highlighted or the social construction of the ‘rural’ contains different meanings depending on the various social groups’ (everyday, regular, partial, seasonal) engagement with or ‘gazing at’ the rural (Halfacree 2001; Wylie 2007; Gallent et al. 2008; Woods 2011). Most importantly, the category of movers to rural areas includes those who aspire to a ‘return to the land’ (Halfacree 2007) or follow a ‘counter-urbanization’ trend (Fuguitt 2004) leading them to less densely populated areas. It is well-known that ‘counter-urbanization’, though researched for several decades, remains a complex phenomenon challenged by various disagreements over its exact definition (Fielding 1998; Champion 1998; Halfacree and Boyle 1998; Vartiainen 1989; Mitchell 2004).

8  Transformative Mobilities and Resilience Dynamics in Rural Coastal Greece…

145

Putting aside the discussion on the nuts and bolts of ‘counter-urbanization’, it becomes evident that new social groups are emerging in rural areas, which are identified with diverse social and economic practices, engaged with innovative and/or hybrid activities, and whose lifestyle differs significantly from that of permanent residents (Stockdale et al. 2000; Paniagua 2002; Stockdale 2006; Escrivano 2007; Mahon 2007; Stockdale 2014). Moreover, a form of ‘counter-urbanization’ is associated with the movement of people to rural areas with natural resources, infrastructures and/or leisure services. Terms such as ‘lifestyle migration’ (O’Reilly 2000) or ‘amenity migration’ (Cadieux and Hurley 2011) include a wide range of migrant categories who, for a multitude of reasons, move to areas with rich natural resources or favourable climate conditions, or areas combining a host of characteristics which articulate a certain quality of life (Gossnell and Abrams 2011; Cortes-Vazquez 2017; Lekies et  al. 2015; Matarrita-Cascante 2017). Related to this discussion is the construction of the countryside as a place of recreation, whereby the countryside attracts permanent residents who are attracted by mixed urban-rural places that combine both rural and urban values (Paquette and Domon 2003; Lacour and Puissant 2007; Wylie 2007). The ‘rural gentrification’ approach contributes arguments which are particularly significant especially for investigating various components such as the intensification of social segregation, capital investment, rapid social change and cultural change (Phillips 2004, 2010; Nelson et  al. 2010; Lagendijk et  al. 2014) that appear to create certain types of socio-spatial enclaves within the rural landscape. The presence of international economic migrants in rural areas is connected to a combination of demographic, social, economic and structural factors; it is also linked to labour shortages in local receiving societies (Hoggart and Mendoza 1999; Kasimis et al. 2003; Labrianidis and Sykas 2009a, b; Papadopoulos 2009; Kasimis et al. 2010). In the case of rural Greece, the employment of migrants has contributed to the following key issues: first, migrant employment in agriculture has been important in maintaining and/or expanding agricultural activity; second, the availability of migrant labour has released farmers from heavy agricultural work, enabling them to organize the production and improve the marketing of their products; third, migrant employment has been important in other sectors such as construction and tourism in rural areas; and fourth, migrants have contributed significantly to the demographic renewal of certain less favoured and remote areas (Kasimis and Papadopoulos 2005; Kasimis and Papadopoulos 2012). More recent research has expanded the discussion of the changing roles and actions of migrants (Papadopoulos and Fratsea 2017; Papadopoulos et al. 2018), while there are conceptualisations aiming at an overall account of the new transformations incurred by new rural immigrant destinations (McAreavey 2017). Admittedly, the Greek literature on the issue of counter-urbanization and, more particularly, the ‘return to the countryside’ is rather limited. It either focuses on the characteristics of specific coastal rural areas that have attracted significant numbers of newcomers (Chalkias et  al. 2011; Papadopoulos and Ouils 2014) or on more targeted research into the ‘return’ to rural areas due to the economic crisis, which

146

A. G. Papadopoulos and L.-M. Fratsea

had an immense impact on the country (Gkartzios 2013; Anthopoulou and Petrou 2015; Anthopoulou et al. 2017; Gkartzios et al. 2017; Papadopoulos et al. 2019). More to the point, some writers have traced the trajectories of those people who seemed to have turned to agriculture in response to the economic recession (Kasimis and Papadopoulos 2013; Kasimis and Zografakis 2014), while others emphasized young people’s engagement with agriculture in the era of austerity (Koutsou et al. 2014; Petrou and Koutsou 2014). However, there is still significant gap in researching ‘lifestyle’ or ‘amenity migration’ and ‘rural gentrification’ in Greece, which may possibly relate to the seasonality of such movements, the heterogeneity of the phenomena, and/or the small size of the relevant populations. The existence of new social actors in rural areas is tightly bound up with transformative mobilities -referring to a mixture of the numerous mobilities towards and among rural areas- which can be traced in both urban and rural areas. In fact, the concept of mobility transcends the rural/urban dichotomy, since the rural is acknowledged as at least as mobile as the urban (Milbourne and Kitchen 2014). Along with mobilities which are central to the structuring of people’s lives, emphasis is also placed on (im)mobility, moorings, dwelling and stillness as well as on speed or liquidity (Urry 2007; Bauman 2007). Far from reducing migration to movement, we believe that the discussion that has developed around mobilities is particularly informative for the discussion on resilience dynamics in rural areas. Those who refer to a ‘mobility turn’ in sociology (Urry 2000, 2007), and those who have suggested a ‘new mobilities paradigm’ (Sheller and Urry 2006), argue in favour of a new way of thinking and looking at social phenomena—and, more particularly, migration—through the lens of movement (Hannam et al. 2006). However, mobilities is a complex assemblage of movement, social imaginaries and experience (Glick Schiller and Salazar 2013; Salazar 2017) which needs to be seen in conjunction with the (re)construction of rural areas. Despite the initial identification of mobility with social mobility that refers to the social upgrading of people (Faist 2013), we are reminded that mobilities aim at bringing together the purely ‘social’ concerns of sociology (inequality, power, hierarchies) with the ‘spatial’ concerns of geography (territories, borders, scale) and the ‘cultural’ concerns of anthropology (discourses, representations) (Sheller 2014). At the same time, mobilities cannot be comprehended without considering the spatial, which involves a number of aspects (scale, places and territories). More to the point, imagined places and/or territorial imaginaries are important components of mobilities and of peoples’ actions in relation to their (non)movement. Looking at mobilities implies that we are able to theorize and analyse the de-territorialisation and re-territorialisation processes of people’s lives. Therefore, the linkages between mobilities and the (re)construction of places/spaces brings into the discussion Massey’s (2005) conception of the “throwntogetherness of places”, which refers to the “even-shifting constellation of trajectories” (151). According to Massey, “multiplicity, antagonisms and contrasting temporalities are the stuff for all places” (159), while places are also arenas where there is a “practicing of place” and “the negotiation of intersecting trajectories” (154). In this way, there are competing imaginations of places and often there is no coherent ‘now’ for them. What is more,

8  Transformative Mobilities and Resilience Dynamics in Rural Coastal Greece…

147

place is negotiated by identities which are on the move. Following Massey’s (2005: 141) line of thinking, and in contrast to viewing places as settled and pre-given with an alleged coherence disturbed by ‘external forces’, places are here presented as in need of invention; they pose a challenge. In such a context, places can be seen as territories where rootedness (localness) and cosmopolitanism are reconciled as co-producing/co-constructing aspects of the spatial. Locals and cosmopolitans may be understood as interrelating entities and as having common interests in the survival of diversity (Hannerz 1990). It seems though that there are various types/meanings of cosmopolitanism which intersect with people’s movements (Calhoun 2002; Calhoun 2008), although mobilities cannot be reduced to cosmopolitanism. A tendency towards ‘cosmopolitanisation’ is considered to be closely linked to de-territorialisation (a result of globalisation), meaning it is not simply presence and absence but also imagined presence (Beck 2002). In this guise, confrontation along the cosmopolitan/local divide is transformed into a cosmopolitan-local continuum whereby various forms of attachment to local/national/institutional protectionism are identified (Roudometof 2005; Olofsson and Ohman 2007; Haller and Roudometof 2010). It thus appears important to analyse the specific combinations of cosmopolitan/local attributes as these reflect upon specific communities/places/regions. The term ‘rural cosmopolitanism’ seeks to capture precisely the fact that cosmopolitan dispositions and practices become attributes of individuals and communities within the rural society (Cid Aguayo 2008; Popke 2011; Woods 2018). When further developed, the above discussion leads to two basic approaches to the capacity of rural places to respond to globalization or major economic events: the first approach puts forward the need for allowing rural communities/localities/ regions to ‘open up’, increase their adaptive capacity, transform, and thus become more resilient against external shocks (e.g. financial crises) that may increase their vulnerability; the second stresses that certain qualities and practices that already exist in rural communities/localities/regions may, when realised (e.g. by means of transformative mobilities and interactions), improve their resilience through sustainability (Papadopoulos 2019). The first approach corresponds to a sort of ‘strong’ resilience which implies that the influx of external actors (McGranahan et al. 2010; Bosworth and Atterton 2012; Herslund 2012) invigorates rural territories by forcing them to adapt, given the new changing conditions. The second approach points to a ‘weak’ resilience, stressing the recognition of rural territories’ existing components, qualities and advantages (Sanchez-Zamora et  al. 2014; Sanchez-Zamora and Gallardo-Cobos 2019) that allow them to develop coping/getting by strategies in harsh circumstances (in-migrants/movers play an important role in this). The central concept here is that of resilience which, though questioned and/or criticised by some (Hassink 2010; Hudson 2010; Davoudi et al. 2012; Martin and Sunley 2015), is seen by others as an opportunity to re-frame development and practice (Scott 2013; Freshwater 2015; Evenhuis 2017; Faulkner et  al. 2019). Moreover, the rapidly expanding literature has dealt with the issue(s) of community, rural and regional resilience to the financial crisis (Wilson 2010; McManus et al. 2012; Evenhuis 2017).

148

A. G. Papadopoulos and L.-M. Fratsea

To sum up, the transformative capacity of mobilities has been discussed as an important factor of the resilience dynamics in rural areas within Europe. The different trajectories (re)constructing rural places were analyzed, while, at the same time, it was discovered that the cosmopolitan/local divide needs to be seen as a continuum that allows for significant rural/local diversity. The differentiation between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ resilience provides an analytical tool for dissecting the components of resilience in specific rural areas.

8.3  A  nalysing the Mixed Mobilities and Resilience Dynamics in Two Insular Areas 8.3.1  R  ecent Population Dynamics on the Islands of Syros and Andros The research was conducted in two island communities on the islands of Syros and of Andros, both of which are part of the Cyclades group in the Aegean Sea. In the period 2013–2018, extensive research was carried out which sought to investigate the changing socioeconomic conditions in the context of the economic recession on the two islands, while particular emphasis was placed to the role of the primary sector (agriculture and fisheries) in the development of the local economy. A mixed methodology approach was adopted which combined both qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques. Quantitative data were collected in two time periods (2014 and 2017) on the basis of a geographically stratified probability sampling of residents who responded to a structured questionnaire. In total, 446 questionnaires were collected by means of face-to-face personal interviews. In addition, 45 interviews and five focus groups were conducted with local and regional stakeholders (local entrepreneurs, local authorities, local agricultural associations, fishermen, amateur fishermen, etc.). Despite that the two islands of Syros and Andros belong to the same group of islands (Cyclades) in the South Aegean Sea Region, they vary significantly in terms of population dynamics and socio-economic characteristics. Syros, at a distance of 144 km from Athens, is located at the centre of Cyclades islands. The island covers 83.6 km2 and, due to the relatively large size of its capital Hermoupolis, which is the administrative centre of the South Aegean Region, retains a high population density. The northern part of Syros, called “Ano Syros” (Upper Syros), is mountainous and sparsely inhabited. The hill of Ano Syros is dominated by the Catholic church of St. George, which was built in the Mediaeval era. Syros has a large Catholic community and mixed marriages between Catholics and Orthodox are a frequent phenomenon. In Syros, the two churches celebrate Easter on the same day (on the Orthodox date), a tradition that strengthens the social bonds within the community.

8  Transformative Mobilities and Resilience Dynamics in Rural Coastal Greece…

149

Andros is located 67 km from the port of Rafina and is the northernmost island of the Cyclades group. It is for the most part mountainous, and while it is nearly five times larger than Syros, covering 380 km2, its population density is a fraction of Syros’. Andros is divided administratively into three Municipal Units: the Municipal Unit of Korthi in the southern part of the island, the Municipal Unit of Chora (the capital) covering the central part of the island, and the Municipal Unit of Hydroussa covering the north and northwest. Historically, the Municipal Unit of Korthi was more agriculturally oriented, the sailing tradition was more prevalent in Chora, while Gavrio in the Municipal Unit of Hydroussa, the only port connecting Andros to Rafina, was a fishing village until 20 years ago, when it slowly started to develop its tourist infrastructures. Due to this diverse profile, the more perceptive residents are conscious of the fact that: Andros is actually three islands merged into one, each municipal unit represents a different island. We are divided into three localities, and each locality is a different world. (Female, Andros, late 40s, interview in 2014)

The human geography of Andros is highly diverse, since the three municipal units illustrate different social structures with different identities and socioeconomic/cultural representations. The wealthiest locality of Chora Androu is characterised by a somewhat polarized social structure containing, on the one hand, the wealthy ship-­ owners in whose hands the future of the area lies, and, on the other hand, the (former) sailors with their families as well as other professionals who are somehow dependent on the former for their well-being. This polarized social structure contrasts with the agrarian social structure of Korthi, which is more egalitarian due to the predominance of farmers, fishermen and small holders. The ‘egalitarian’ society of Korthi seems to encourage collaboration and solidarity among the locals. Finally, the third locality of Hydroussa contains two conurbations, one of which is more touristically developed (Batsi); the other is identified with the Island’s harbour (Gavrio). This latter locality resembles other coastal areas with tourist development (since the 1970s) and has a more conventional social structure characterised by a predominance of middle strata and a modern mentality and practices. Between 1951 and 2011, the population of the two research areas reflected a generalized decline, while the population of the Cyclades and the South Aegean Sea has been increasing since the 1980s. More specifically, Syros’s population fell by 29% over the entire 50-year period, while in the decade 2001–2011 it increased by 7.6% (Fig. 8.1). In contrast, Andros’ population has continued to decline throughout the reporting period and shows an overall decrease of 38%. The only exception was during 1980s, when the population of Andros grew by 13%, although the population decline resumed in the following decades. However, international and, more recently, internal migration has been important on both islands, either for sustaining population robustness or maintaining a labour force necessary for the smooth operation of the local economy. In terms of population dynamics, there have been three important trends over the last 10 years. The first is the significant increase in the number of immigrants on

150

A. G. Papadopoulos and L.-M. Fratsea

Fig. 8.1  Evolution of the de facto population in the two islands, compared with the Cyclades and South Aegean Islands. (Source: ELSTAT, Census Population data) Table 8.1  Migrants by region of origin in 2001 and 2011 Countries/region of origin EU-15 EU- 10 (New accession countries) Albania Other European TCNs Asia Africa Other countries Total

Syros 2001 22.5 11.3 46.4 6.8 4.6 1.3 7.1 100.0

2011 17.3 14.5 45.7 7.2 8.4 0.8 6.1 100.0

Andros 2001 6.2 2.5 70.8 5.1 1.5 0.2 13.6 100.0

2011 4.7 6.0 72.5 5.1 1.4 0.1 10.4 100.0

Source: ELSTAT, Population Census 2001, 2011

Syros. Indeed, even though the share of international migrants is relatively small −5.6% in Syros, compared to 16.7% on Andros- it is important to note that between 2001 and 2011, migrants in Syros increased by 156%, while on Andros the number of international migrants increased by 93%. The large percentage of foreigners/ immigrants in the local population on Andros points to the fact that it is essentially a multicultural society. Indicatively, one in five inhabitants of Andros is a foreigner. In addition, Table 8.1 presents the distribution of foreign/immigrant population by country of origin in the two research areas. Here again there is a difference between the migrant populations of the two regions. On Syros, Albanian immigrants account

8  Transformative Mobilities and Resilience Dynamics in Rural Coastal Greece…

151

for almost half of all foreigners (46%), while significant numbers are citizens of EU countries (17%) as well as citizens of countries that have recently joined the EU (15%). On Andros, Albanians make up the vast majority of foreigners on the island (73%), while other countries (11%) account for smaller percentages. Secondly, there is a significant seasonal variation in the population of the two islands. For example, during the summer, it is estimated that the population of Andros quadruples, which increases pressure on the island’s resources. Adding to the aforementioned population trends is the fact that there is a sizeable population mobility of people originating from other parts of the country—mainly urban centres—towards the two islands. During fieldwork, it became clear that, taken together, these population trends—internal migration, seasonal movements and international migration— play an important role in the rejuvenation and resilience of the two islands. Comparing the demographic profile of the two island communities, the respondents on Syros are relatively older with a medium to high education, while Andros’ respondents seem to be younger on average with a higher educational profile. Employment opportunities vary seasonally and there is extensive underemployment and undeclared employment in the local economy that cannot be easily recorded; nevertheless, during fieldwork, most respondents were employed. Up until the onset of the downturn, Syros’ economy was based on public sector employment and the operation of Neorion, one of the oldest shipyards in Greece. Tourism and agricultural activities made a limited contribution to local income. Andros, on the other hand, has had a long shipping history from the late eighteenth century which was internationally-oriented and an important occupation for the male population of the capital; indeed, naval remittances and shipping sector-related revenues were considered by the locals a primary developmental factor. Since the mid-1980s, other parts of Andros, such as Batsi, have developed an economy based on internal tourism, construction, second homes and retirement migration. Currently, Syros has a fairly limited primary sector (3.1%), a fairly developed secondary sector (21.4%) and an adequately developed tertiary sector—mainly public services and tourism (75.5%); Andros, in turn, largely depends on primary sector activities (15%), while the secondary (27.4%) and tertiary (57.6%) sectors are also developed (ELSTAT 2011). In the early years of the crisis, there was a general impression among residents that island regions were protected against the implications of the downturn. Nevertheless, as the recession deepened and the fiscal austerity measures increased, both islands were affected by the crisis, albeit in different way. On Andros, the contraction of the construction sector and crisis in the real estate market significantly affected the local economy, whereas on Syros wage and pension cuts in line with fiscal consolidation measures accompanied by the further decline of Neorion and the fall in internal tourism weakened the local economy. Given the mix of mobilities that affect the two research sites, we may discern two wider population groups: the ‘locals’, being people who were born, grew up and lived for most of their adult lives in the two research areas, and the ‘newcomers’, referring to the individuals who were born and raised outside these areas, but decided to migrate to Syros or Andros later in their adult lives. The latter group is rather diverse, as it consists of individuals who lived and worked in Athens but

152

A. G. Papadopoulos and L.-M. Fratsea

during the economic crisis decided to move to the islands in search of new employment opportunities, but also individuals at different stages in their life cycle who were living in other areas and decided to move to the islands in search of employment or a better and more fulfilling quality of life. Generally, when considering the socioeconomic characteristics of the ‘locals’ and ‘newcomers’, the former group is relatively older with a lower educational level, while the latter group  consists of individuals who are on average younger and with a medium to high educational level. These two population groups intersect in the case of individuals who share a common characteristic: they have previous experience of living/working abroad, either as migrants who travelled abroad for education or employment, or as sailors. Based on the empirical data, in each area approximately 30% of the respondents have lived abroad for an average of 6 months. We may argue that it is in the group of ‘newcomers’ and this intersection group that one can identify a condition consisting of more ‘cosmopolitan’ thinking and behaviour. Even though it has been widely noted in the recent literature that ‘cosmopolitans’ are a rather diverse group (Hannerz 1990), it would seem that a type of rural cosmopolitanism’ (Popke 2011; Woods 2018) emerges in rural coastal areas, which is connected to the new activities rediscovered in both areas, but more importantly with various expectations and demands for quality of life, well-being and local development. Those cosmopolitan and mobile individuals may contribute to the resilience of their islands, as they play important roles in the new activities which have been emerging recently, as well as to progressive perceptions relating to local economic development and the environment.

8.3.2  F  rom Crisis to Recovery: In Search of a New Development Vision The population groups that live in the two research areas have different perceptions regarding their quality of life, show a diverse perception of the rural-coastal landscape of the place where they have settled, and view the degree of economic development of their place of residence differently. These perceptions have changed over the years of economic recession, but it is clear, too, that the development vision, particularly that of the new residents, has gained momentum. In other words, one can identify merging together of the cosmopolitans and newcomers’ perceptions to the residents of the two coastal areas. Perceptions about the qualities of the rural-coastal landscape do not differ significantly between the two population groups and the two research areas. On both islands, the residents consider their place to be ‘peaceful’, ‘idyllic’, ‘humane’, ‘safe’, and ‘friendly’. Additionally, there is a general consensus between the locals and the newcomers that environmental factors, such as the natural and marine environment and community cohesion, expressed primarily as a sense of security, tranquillity, belonging and bonding with the other community members, are among the

8  Transformative Mobilities and Resilience Dynamics in Rural Coastal Greece…

153

basic factors that determine the quality of life in the two research sites. Despite the adverse economic conditions, economic well-being, incorporating the existing economic opportunities and cost of living, followed in the ranking. Community solidarity as a component of a ‘better’ quality of life compared to urban centres was referred to repeatedly in the interviews. More to the point, when describing the harsh economic environment, the interviewees mentioned the responsiveness of the local population to helping the most vulnerable and hardest hit by the downturn. In the words of a resident of Andros: There is no way I can know that a guy we grew up with, or a friend is ‘hungry’ [i.e. cannot afford to live] and just leave him in that state. If I have 100 euro, I will say: “Take half and we will be ‘hungry’ together”. There is still this state of mind here; the role of the family and the local society. (Male, early 50s, Andros, interviewed in 2014)

Moreover, there was an important mobilization on the part of the church—Orthodox and Catholic—while a number of local networks and community associations were organized to support the poorer strata materially and/or financially. Thus, on both islands, community solidarity emerged as a significant factor in attempts to alleviate the consequences of the economic recession and cuts in public services. However, when asked whether their quality of life has improved or deteriorated over the last ten years of economic recession, there were slight differences between the responses of the respondents from the two regions. Three out of five respondents on Syros and Andros believe that their quality of life has not improved. A similar proportion in both areas are unsure whether their quality of life has improved or deteriorated (14% in Syros and 10% in Andros). Yet, it is important to note that fewer than one in three respondents in both regions believe their quality of life has increased over the last decade (28% in Syros and 30% in Andros). However, comparing the two population groups reveals that on Syros, the newcomers appear to be more optimistic, since they believe their quality of life has improved in recent years, while on Andros, locals and newcomers alike consider their quality of life to have improved in some areas and remained stable in others. This somewhat more positive assessment of quality of life on the part of the newcomers comparing to the locals also manifests itself when they are asked to justify their responses. The impact of the economic crisis on the local area and the livelihoods of the respondents is at the heart of their assessment. However, those respondents—the majority of whom are locals—who argue that quality of life has not improved over the last decade, tend to explain this with references to the impact of the financial crisis, proposing issues such as rising unemployment, decreasing in consumer spending, reduced tourism and reduced purchasing power. In contrast, those respondents—the majority of whom are newcomers—who assess the quality of life in the area as somewhat improved, tend to highlight local amenity attractions and the natural and/or marine environment, and even to see new economic opportunities. In other words, it seems that, in general, those who have moved to the two islands recently see an improvement in their quality of life despite the harsh economic environment, because as they describe, they consider their move to be a ‘clean break’, a ‘fresh start’ and a ‘new beginning’ far from the recession’s impact on urban centres.

154

A. G. Papadopoulos and L.-M. Fratsea

I have moved from Athens to Andros and I took over the family business. Cultural activities, the natural environment, a life without stress and the short distances between work and home, play an important role in quality of life. (Female, newcomer, late 40s, Andros, interviewed in 2018)

Others have gone further and welcomed a positive outcome of the crisis: the regeneration of their place of residence. As they argue: [quality of life has improved] during the years of crisis. People have returned to the island. Houses that were shut up for years have opened, and children and young people are back. (Male, Newcomer, Mid-fifties, interviewed in 2014 in Andros)

The degree to which particular economic sectors contribute to the economic development of the two islands differ between them and between the two population groups. Back in 2014, when asked to prioritize the basic economic sectors that contributed to local economic development, on Syros the majority of the locals said the basic sector that contributed to the development of the island was the local shipyard [Neorion] (54%), followed by the administrative (public sector) services (46%) and tourism (45%). In contrast, the majority of newcomers on Syros pointed to the tourist sector (63%), followed by the administrative (public sector) services (37%) with the local shipyard ranked in third place (37%). On Andros, the majority of the locals considered shipping and naval remittances (46%) to be the main sectors which contributed to the economic development of the island, followed by tourism (43%) and agriculture (33%). In contrast, the majority of ‘newcomers’ believes that local development is based primarily on the tourist sector (63%), followed by construction (37%) and agriculture (34%), ranking shipping in fourth place (29%). Overall, amidst the economic recession, in both island communities the ‘newcomers’ seem to deviate from the local development narrative constructed by the ‘locals’ on the basis of the traditional economic activities of the Neorion shipyards, considering the tourist sector to be the main component of the area’s economic development. Since 2014, this situation seems to have reversed. In fact, by 2017 on Syros, the tourism sector was the one contributing most to local economic growth (68%), followed by the administrative sector (33%), the local shipyard (25%) and the agricultural sector (22%). Similarly, on Andros, tourism (72%) is by far the most important sector for the island’s economic growth, followed by shipping (52%), which still supports the island’s households. The agricultural sector (18%) is the third most important for the economic development of the region, and commerce (10%) ranks last. Interestingly, comparing the views of the locals and the newcomers, it seems that both population groups on the two islands have moved away from the ‘traditional’ development path followed before and during the years of the crisis in an attempt to counterbalance the negative implications of the economic recession. In other words, it would seem that the ‘newcomers’ development narrative has gained ground against the local narrative. In this context, the ‘newcomers’ acted as pioneers and were followed by the locals, who moved away from the dominant narrative of limited opportunities and instead re-discovered, or even invented, new development pathways. For example, it became evident during fieldwork that a number of locals and newcomers had

8  Transformative Mobilities and Resilience Dynamics in Rural Coastal Greece…

155

turned to agricultural activities, or even attempted to combine agricultural activities with tourism in order to maximize their income. Agriculture can boost the local economy [now]. Agriculture is like a ‘rough diamond’ which local society should carve in combination with [investing in] the local manufacturing of agricultural products and marketing. (Male, early 50s, Andros, newcomer, interviewed in 2017)

These efforts or ‘local practices of resilience’ (see Papadopoulos et al. 2019) were more reluctant in the period 2013–2014 and more prevalent by 2016–2017, when it had become evident that the continuation of the economic recession demanded more radical responses on the part of the local population. As illustrated in Fig. 8.2 below, newcomers appear to be more optimistic regarding the current economic environment and consider this period to be a good time to embark on an entrepreneurial or business activity. On the contrary, locals in both areas appear to be less risk averse and are more reluctant to start a business in the light of the obstacles and challenges raised by the downturn and austerity measures. When asked to propose the sectors that were the most profitable and suitable to invest in given the current economic environment, the majority of respondents on both islands proposed the tourist sector. However, comparing to the locals in Syros, one eighth of the newcomers think the agricultural sector is the most suitable, while on Andros this figure rises to one fifth of the newcomers. Interestingly enough, almost one third of the locals, and the ‘cosmopolitans’ in particular, suggest the agricultural sector as most suitable for future investments.

Fig. 8.2  Do you consider the current period a good time to take up a business initiative? (Source: Fieldwork data, 2017)

156

A. G. Papadopoulos and L.-M. Fratsea

8.4  Conclusions The discussion above has shown that the various mobilities seem to have impacted on the resilience dynamics in two rural island areas in Greece. The demographic and socioeconomic profile of in-migrants/movers means they have an important impact. Their ‘cosmopolitan’ attributes and practices have allowed them to improve their socioeconomic situations, while their development imaginations/aspirations seem to have inspired local development planning. Rural places are being (re)constructed as a result of the negotiations between the various trajectories, the competing identities and interactions between the locals and the so-called ‘cosmopolitans’, who are not as attached to the local. Elements of a local/rural ‘creative class’ (Herslund 2012) are emerging, an observation supported by the fact that the in-migrants/movers are more knowledgeable and tend to engage in entrepreneurial activities. In both island areas, the locals reminisce about an imaginary ‘glorious past’, which relates on Syros to the Neorion shipyard, and on Andros to the naval remittances that were such a significant factor in the local economy. However, the ‘cosmopolitans’ seem to deconstruct this ‘glorious past’ and propose a new conceptualisation of desirable local economic development and governance (Shucksmith 2018). The new imaginaries for the island areas involve an expansion of the service sector, high value services and tourist development. However, the resilience dynamics differ between the two island areas depending on the dominant economic sectors and local resistance to the cosmopolitan drift. More particularly, the existing internal divisions among the locals (the religious divide on Syros and the territorial differentiation on Andros) remain significant in the local arena and allow for the survival of parochialism/localism. The resurgence of localist attributes may give rise to alternative imaginaries in the two island areas, promoting close linkages between agriculture and tourist services along with a sense of community belonging. What locals consider a traditional way of life (a slow pace of living, quality food and quality natural resources) may well continue to attract more ‘cosmopolitans’ in search of local experiences. In fact, the dynamics of resilience can be better observed when the socioeconomic tendencies have been established and rural places, as spaces which are home to flows, become recipients of sustainable development. Acknowledgement  The paper is based on the empirical findings of a four-and-half year EU research project (2013–2018) LIFE12 NAT/GR/000688 ‘CYCLADES Life: Integrated monk seal conservation of Northern Cyclades’.

8  Transformative Mobilities and Resilience Dynamics in Rural Coastal Greece…

157

References Adger WN (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Prog Hum Geogr 24(3):347–364 Anthopoulou T, Petrou M (2015) Facets of crisis and return to rural areas: discussing rural resilience. Aeihoros 20:96–121. (in Greek) Anthopoulou T, Kaberis N, Petrou M (2017) Aspects and experiences of crisis in rural Greece. Narratives of rural resilience. J Rural Stud 52:1–11 Artelaris P (2017) Geographies of crisis in Greece: a social well-being approach. Geoforum 84:59–69 Balourdos D (2017) Urban poverty and ‘good governance’ in Greece: a first assessment. In: Demertzis N, Balourdos D, Kikilias I, Spyropoulou N, Chrysakis M (eds) The social portrait of Greece 2016–2017. ION, Athens, pp 375–400. (in Greek) Bauman Z (2007) Liquid times: living in an age of uncertainty. Polityn Press, Cambridge Beck U (2002) The cosmopolitan society and its enemies. Theory, Culture & Society 19(1/2):17–44 Bell MM, Osti G (2010) Mobilities and ruralities: an introduction. Sociol Rural 50(3):199–204 Bosworth G, Atterton J (2012) Entrepreneurial in-migration and neo-endogenous rural development. Rural Sociol 77(2):254–279 Cadieux KV, Hurley PT (2011) Amenity migration, exurbia, and emerging rural landscapes: global natural amenity as place and as process. GeoJournal 76:297–302 Calhoun C (2002) The class consciousness of frequent travelers: toward a critique of actually existing cosmopolitanism. South Atl Q 101(4):869–897 Calhoun C (2008) Cosmopolitanism in the modern social imaginary. Daedalus 137(3):105–114 Chalkias C, Papadopoulos AG, Ouils A, Karymbalis E, Detsis V (2011) Land cover changes in the coastal peri-urban zone of Korinth, Greece. In: Özhan E (ed) Proceedings of the tenth international conference on the Mediterranean Coastal Environment MEDCOAST 2011, Rhodes, pp 913–923 Champion AG (1998) Studying counterurbanisation and the rural population turnaround. In: Boyle P, Halfacree K (eds) Migration into rural areas: theories and issues. Wiley, Chichester, pp 21–40 Champion A (2001) Urbanization, suburbanization, counterurbanization and reurbanization. In: Paddison R (ed) Handbook of urban studies. Sage, London, pp 143–161 Cid Aguayo BE (2008) Global villages and rural cosmopolitanism: exploring global ruralities. Globalizations 5(4):541–554 Cortes-Vazquez JA (2017) The end of the idyll? Post-crisis conservation and amenity migration in natural protected areas. J Rural Stud 51:15–124 Davoudi S, Shaw K, Haider JL, Quinlan AE, Peterson GD, Wilkinson C, Fünfgeld H, McEvoy D, Porter L, Davoudi S (2012) Resilience: a bridging concept or a dead end? “reframing” resilience: challenges for planning theory and practice interacting traps: resilience assessment of a pasture management system in Northern Afghanistan urban resilience: what does it mean in planning practice? Resilience as a useful concept for climate change adaptation? The politics of resilience for planning: a cautionary note. Plan Theory Pract 13(2):299–333 Della Porta D, Hänninen S, Siisiäinen M, Silvasti T (2015) The precarization effect. In: della Porta D, Hänninen S, Siisiäinen M, Silvasti T (eds) The new social division: making and unmaking precariousness. Palgrave-Macmillan, London, pp 1–23 Dijkstra L, Garcilazo E, McCann P (2015) The effects of the global financial crisis on European regions and cities. J Econ Geogr 15(5):935–949 ELSTAT (2011) Population census 2011. (available from www.statistics.gr) Escrivano MJR (2007) Migration to rural navarre: questioning the experience of counterurbanisation. Tijschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geographie 98(1):32–41 Evenhuis E (2017) New directions in researching regional economic resilience and adaptation. Geogr Compass 66:1–15 Faist T (2013) The mobility turn: a new paradigm for the social sciences? Ethn Racial Stud 36(11):1637–1646

158

A. G. Papadopoulos and L.-M. Fratsea

Faulkner J-P, Murphy E, Scott M (2019) Rural household vulnerability a decade after the great financial crisis. J Rural Stud 72:240–251 Fielding T (1998) Counterurbanisation and social class. In: Boyle P, Halfacree K (eds) Migration into rural areas: theories and issues. Wiley, Chichester, pp 41–60 Fonseca ML (2008) New waves of immigration to small towns and rural areas in Portugal. Popul Space Place 14(6):525–535 Freshwater D (2015) Vulnerability and resilience: two dimensions of rurality. Sociol Rural 55(4):497–515 Fuguitt GV (2004) Some demographic aspects of rurality. Res Soc Stratif Mobil 22:73–90 Galani-Moutafi V (2013) Rural space (re)produced practices, performances and visions: a case study from an Aegean island. J Rural Stud 32:103–113 Gallent N, Juntti M, Kidd S, Shaw D (2008) Introduction to rural planning. Routledge, London Gkartzios M (2013) ‘Leaving Athens’: narratives of counterurbanisation in times of crisis. J Rural Stud 32:158–167 Gkartzios M, Remoundou K, Garrod G (2017) Emerging geographies of mobility: the role of regional towns in Greece’s ‘counterurbanisation story’. J Rural Stud 55:22–32 Glick Schiller N, Salazar NB (2013) Regimes of mobility across the globe. J Ethn Migr Stud 39(2):183–200 Gossnell H, Abrams J (2011) Amenity migration: diverse conceptualisations of drivers, socioeconomic dimensions and emerging challenges. GeoJournal 76:303–322 Hadjimichalis C (2011) Uneven geographical development and socio-spatial justice and solidarity: European regions after the 2009 financial crisis. Eur Urban Reg Stud 18(3):254–274 Halfacree K (2001) Constructing the object: taxonomic practices, ‘counterurbanisation’ and positioning marginal rural settlement. Int J Popul Geogr 7:395–411 Halfacree K (2007) Back-to-the-land in the twenty-first century: making connections with rurality. Tijschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geographie 98(1):3–8 Halfacree K (2009) Rurality and post-rurality. Int Encycl Hum Geogr 9:449–456 Halfacree K, Boyle P (1998) Migration, rurality and the post-productivist countryside. In: Boyle P, Halfacree K (eds) Migration into rural areas: theories and issues. Wiley, Chichester, pp 1–20 Haller W, Roudometof V (2010) The cosmopolitan–local continuum in cross-national perspective. J Sociol 46(3):277–297 Hannam K, Sheller M, Urry J (2006) Editorial: mobilities, immobilities and moorings. Mobilities 1(1):1–22 Hannerz U (1990) Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture. Theory Cult Soc 7(2-3):237–251 Hassink R (2010) Regional resilience: a promising concept to explain differences in regional economic sustainability? Camb J Reg Econ Soc 3:45–58 Herslund L (2012) The rural creative class: counterurbanisation and entrepreneurship in the Danish countryside. Sociol Rural 52(2):235–255 Hoggart K, Mendoza C (1999) African immigrant workers in Spanish agriculture. Sociol Rural 39(4):538–562 Hudson R (2010) Resilient regions in an uncertain world: wishful thinking or a practical reality? Camb J Reg Econ Soc 3(1):11–25 Karakioulafi C, Spyridakis M, Giannakopoulou E, Karalis D, Soros G (2014) Unemployment and job insecurity: dimensions and impacts in times of crisis. INE/GSEE, Athens. (in Greek) Karambela S, Papazoglou C, Kizos T, Spilanis I (2017) Sustainable local development on Aegean Islands: a meta-analysis of the literature. Island Stud J 12(1):71–94 Karymbalis E, Papadopoulos AG, Chalkias C (2014) A synthetic approach of coastal and island areas. In: Karymbalis T, Papadopoulos AG, Chalkias C (eds) The geography of coastal and island space. Stamoulis, Athens, pp 15–37. (in Greek) Kasimis C, Papadopoulos AG (2005) The multifunctional role of migrants in Greek countryside: implications for rural economy and society. J Ethn Migr Stud 31(1):99–127 Kasimis C, Papadopoulos AG (eds) (2012) Migrants in Greece: employment and integration in local societies. Alexandreia, Athens. (in Greek)

8  Transformative Mobilities and Resilience Dynamics in Rural Coastal Greece…

159

Kasimis C, Papadopoulos AG (2013) Rural transformations and family farming in contemporary Greece. In: Moragues Faus A, Ortiz-Miranda D, Arnalte Alegre E (eds) Agriculture in Mediterranean Europe: between old and new paradigms. Emerald Publications, pp 263–293 Kasimis C, Zografakis S (2014) New rurality in primary sector. Available on: http://www.agronews. gr/files/1/PDF/pdf_fakelou/Gewrgia%20kai%20apasxolisi.pdf (in Greek) Kasimis C, Papadopoulos AG, Zacopoulou E (2003) Migrants in rural Greece. Sociol Rural 43(2):167–184 Kasimis C, Papadopoulos AG, Pappas C (2010) Gaining from rural migrants: migrant employment strategies and socioeconomic implications for rural labour markets. Sociol Rural 50(3):258–276 Ketsetzopoulou M (2017) Income distribution and living standard in crisis-stricken Greece. In: Demertzis N, Balourdos D, Kikilias I, Spyropoulou N, Chrysakis M (eds) The social portrait of Greece 2016–2017. ION, Athens, pp 359–373. (in Greek) King R (2009) Geography, islands and migration in an era of global mobility. Island Stud J 4(1):53–84 Kizos T (2007) Island lifestyles in the Aegean islands, Greece: heaven in summer, hell in winter? In: Palang H, Sooväli H, Printsmann A (eds) Seasonal landscapes. Springer, Berlin, pp 127–149 Koutsou S, Partalidou M, Ragkos A (2014) Young farmers’ social capital in Greece: trust levels and collective actions. J Rural Stud 34:204–211 Labrianidis L, Sykas T (2009a) Preconditions for the economic mobility of immigrants working in the countryside: the case of Greece. Int J Soc Econ 36(8):798–812 Labrianidis L, Sykas T (2009b) Migrants, economic mobility and socioeconomic change in rural areas: the case of Greece. Eur Urban Reg Stud 16(3):237–256 Lacour C, Puissant S (2007) Re-urbanity: urbanising the rural and ruralising the urban. Environ Plan A 39:728–747 Lagendijk A, van Melik R, de Haan F, Ernste H, Ploegmakers H, Kayasu S (2014) Comparative approaches to gentrification research: a research framework. Tijschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geographie 105(3):358–365 Lekies KL, Matarrita-Cascante D, Schewe R, Winkler R (2015) Amenity migration in the new global economy: current issues and research priorities. Soc Nat Resour 28(10):1144–1151 Leontidou L, Marmaras E (2001) From tourists to migrants: residential tourism and ‘littoralisation’. In: Apostolopoulos Y, Loukissas P, Leontidou L (eds) Mediterranean tourism. Facets of socioeconomic development and cultural change. Routledge, London, pp 257–267 Mahon M (2007) New populations; shifting expectations: the changing experience of Irish rural space and place. J Rural Stud 23:345–356 Martin R, Sunley P (2015) on the notion of regional economic resilience: conceptualization and explanation. J Econ Geogr 15:1–42 Massey D (2005) For space UK. Sage, London Matarrita-Cascante D (2017) Moving the amenity migration literature forward: understanding community-level factors associated with positive outcomes after amenity-driven change. J Rural Stud 53:26–34 Matsaganis M, Leventi C (2014) The distributional impact of austerity and the recession in Southern Europe. South Eur Soc Polit 19(3):393–412 Matsaganis M, Parma A, Karakitsios A. (2018) Facets of social mobility in Greece during the crisis, Athens, Dianeosis (available from https://www.dianeosis.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ social_mobility_report_final_161118.pdf) (in Greek) McAreavey R (2017) New immigrant destinations: migration to rural and peripheral areas. Routledge, New York McCarthy J (2005) Rural geography: multifunctional rural geographies—reactionary or radical? Prog Hum Geogr 29(6):773–782 McGranahan DA, Wojan TR, Lambert DM (2010) The rural growth trifecta: outdoor amenities, creative class and entrepreneurial context. J Econ Geogr 11(3):529–557

160

A. G. Papadopoulos and L.-M. Fratsea

McManus P, Walmsley J, Argent N, Baum S, Bourke L, Martin J, Sorensen T (2012) Rural community and rural resilience: what is important to farmers in keeping their country towns alive? J Rural Stud 28(1):20–29 Milbourne P (2007) Re-populating rural studies: migrations, movements and mobilities. J Rural Stud 23:381–386 Milbourne P, Kitchen L (2014) Rural mobilities: connecting movement and fixity in rural places. J Rural Stud 34:326–336 Mitchell CJA (2004) Making sense of counterurbanization. J Rural Stud 20(1):15–34 Mitrakos T (2018) Economic inequalities, poverty and social exclusion: international experience and the case of Greece in the recent crisis. Soc Policy 9:7–24 Nelson PB, Oberg A, Nelson L (2010) Rural gentrification and linked migration in the United States. J Rural Stud 26:343–352 O’Reilly K (2000) The British on the Costa del Sol: transnational identities and local communities. Routledge, London OECD (2016) OECD economic surveys: Greece 2016. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi. org/10.1787/eco_surveys-grc-2016-en Olofsson A, Öhman S (2007) Cosmopolitans and locals: an empirical investigation of transnationalism. Curr Sociol 55(6):877–895 Pahl R (1966) The rural-urban continuum. Sociol Rural 6(3):299–329 Paniagua A (2002) Counterurbanisation and new social class in rural Spain: the environmental and rural dimension revisited. Scott Geogr J 118(1):1–18 Papadopoulos AG (2004) Development in a multifunctional countryside. Gutenberg, Athens. in Greek Papadopoulos AG (2009) “Begin from the bottom to move on”: social mobility of immigrant labour in rural Greece. Méditerranée, Revue Géographique des pays méditerranéens 113(3/4):25–39 Papadopoulos AG (2019) Rural planning and the financial crisis. In: Scott M, Gallent N, Gkartzios M (eds) Routledge companion to rural planning. Routledge, pp 183–191 Papadopoulos AG, Fratsea LM (2017) Migrant labour and intensive agricultural production in Greece: the case of Manolada strawberry industry. In: Corrado A, Perotta D, de Castro C (eds) Migration and agriculture: mobility and change in the Mediterranean area. Routledge, London, pp 128–144 Papadopoulos AG, Ouils A (2014) Return to the countryside and permanent rural inhabitants: studying the perceptions of the rural in a coastal area of Corinthia. In: Karymbalis T, Papadopoulos AG, Chalkias C (eds) The geography of coastal and island space. Stamoulis, Athens, pp 107–146. (in Greek) Papadopoulos AG, Fratsea LM, Mavrommatis G (2018) Governing migrant labour in an intensive agricultural area in Greece: focusing on precarity, political mobilization and migrant agency at Manolada’s fields. J Rural Stud 64:200–209 Papadopoulos AG, Fratsea LM, Karanikolas P, Zografakis S (2019) Reassembling the rural: socio-­ economic dynamics, inequalities and resilience in crisis-stricken rural Greece. Sociol Rural 59(3):474–493 Paquette S, Domon G (2003) Changing ruralities, changing landscapes: exploring social recomposition using a multi-scale approach. J Rural Stud 19:425–444 Perkins HC (2006) Commodification: re-resourcing rural areas. In: Cloke P, Marsden T, Mooney P (eds) Handbook of rural studies. Sage, London, pp 243–257 Perpiña Castillo C, Kavalov B, Ribeiro Barranco R, Diogo V, Jacobs-Crisioni C, Batista e Silva F, Baranzelli C, Lavalle C (2018) Territorial facts and trends in the EU rural areas within 2015–2030. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union Petrou M, Koutsou S (2014) Between the city and the fields: researching the socio-occupational profile of young farmers. Greek Rev Soc Res 143:3–32. (in Greek) Phillips M (2004) Other geographies of gentrification. Prog Hum Geogr 28:5–30 Phillips M (2010) Counterurbanisation and rural gentrification: an exploration of the terms. Popul Space Place 16:539–558

8  Transformative Mobilities and Resilience Dynamics in Rural Coastal Greece…

161

Popke J (2011) Latino migration and neoliberalism in the U.S. South: notes toward a rural cosmopolitanism. Southeast Geogr 51(2):242–259 Psycharis Y, Kallioras D, Pantazis P (2014) Economic crisis and regional resilience: detecting the ‘geographical footprint’ of economic crisis in Greece. Reg Sci Policy Pract 6(2):121–141 Rees P, Kupiszewski M (1999) Internal migration and regional population dynamics in Europe a synthesis. Council of Europe, Strasbourg Roudometof V (2005) Transnationalism, cosmopolitanism and glocalization. Curr Sociol 53(1):113–135 Rye JF (2018) Labour migrants and rural change: the ‘mobility transformation’ of Hitra/Frøya, Norway, 2005–2015. J Rural Stud 64:189–199 Salazar NB (2017) Key figures of mobility: an introduction. Soc Anthropol 25(1):5–12 Salvati L (2013) ‘Rural’ sprawl, Mykonian style: a scaling paradox. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 20(2):109–115 Sanchez-Zamora P, Gallardo-Cobos R (2019) Diversity, disparity and territorial resilience in the context of the economic crisis: an analysis of rural areas in Southern Spain. Sustainability 11:1743. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061743 Sanchez-Zamora P, Gallardo-Cobos R, Cena-Delgado F (2014) Rural areas face the economic crisis: analyzing the determinants of successful territorial dynamics. J Rural Stud 35:11–25 Scott M (2013) Resilience: a conceptual lens for rural studies? Geogr Compass 7(9):597–610 Sheller M, Urry J (2006) The new mobilities paradigm. Environ Plan A 38(2):207–226 Sheller M (2014) The new mobilities paradigm for a live sociology. Current Sociology Review 62(6):789–811 Shucksmith M (2018) Re-imagining the rural: from rural idyll to good countryside. J Rural Stud 59:163–172 Slee RW (2005) From countrysides of production to countrysides of consumption? J Agric Sci 143:255–265 Smith D (2007) The changing faces of rural populations: ‘(re)fixing the gaze’ or ‘eyes wide shut’? J Rural Stud 23:275–282 Spilanis I, Kizos T, Koulouri M, Vakoufaris H, Gatsis I (2009) Monitoring sustainability in insular areas. Ecol Indic 9(1):179–187 Stockdale A (2006) Migration: pre-requisite for rural economic regeneration? J Rural Stud 22:354–366 Stockdale A (2014) Unravelling the migration decision-making process: English early retirees moving to rural mid-Wales. J Rural Stud 34:161–171 Stockdale A, Findlay A, Short D (2000) The repopulation of rural Scotland: opportunity and threat. J Rural Stud 16(2):243–257 Tsilimigkas G, Deligianni M, Zerbopoulos T (2016) Spatial typologies of Greek coastal zones and unregulated urban growth. J Coast Conserv 20:397–408 Urry J (2000) Sociology beyond societies: Mobilities for the twenty-first century. Routledge, London Urry J (2007) Mobilities. Cambridge, Polity Vartiainen P (1989) Counterurbanisation: a challenge for socio-theoretical geography. J Rural Stud 5:217–225 Wilson GA (2010) Multifunctional ‘quality’ and rural community resilience. Trans Inst Br Geogr 35(3):364–381 Wilson GA (2013) Community resilience, policy corridors and the policy challenge. Land Use Policy 31:298–310 Woods M (2007) Engaging the global countryside: globalization, hybridity and the reconstitution of rural place. Prog Hum Geogr 31(4):485–507 Woods M (2009) Rural geography: blurring boundaries and making connections. Prog Hum Geogr 33(6):849–858 Woods M (2011) Rural. Routledge, London

162

A. G. Papadopoulos and L.-M. Fratsea

Woods M (2018) Precarious rural cosmopolitanism: negotiating globalization, migration and diversity in Irish small towns. J Rural Stud 64:164–176 Wylie J (2007) Landscape. Routledge, London Apostolos G. Papadopoulos  is a Professor of Rural Sociology and Geography in the Department of Geography, Harokopio University (Athens) and Director  Institute of Social Research at the National Centre for Social Research  (EKKE) (Athens). He has studied sociology in Greece (Panteion University) and the United Kingdom (London School of Economics) and holds a PhD in human geography (University of Sussex). He has a long experience in coordinating research projects and managing research in a host of social research topics. His research interests include family farming, rural development, social transformation, migration, civil society, mobilities, policy process, and policy implementation Loukia-Maria Fratsea  is an experienced researcher and holds an Integrated Master in Agricultural Economics and a M.Sc. in Rural Development and Management of Rural Space (both from the Agricultural University of Athens). She is finishing her PhD in Geography, jointly supervised at the Department of Geography, Harokopio University and at the Dipartimento di Scienze Politiche e Sociali, Università della Calabria. She has participated in several national and international research projects on social and spatial mobility of migrants and rural development. Her research interests include rural transformation, migration and social change and social stratification and mobility.

Chapter 9

Solidarity and Justice in Local Food Systems: The Transformative Potential of Producer-Consumer Networks in Greece Sofia Nikolaidou

9.1  Introduction This chapter addresses the emerging alternative food networks in Greece within a wider discourse on raising societal claims for long-term security and resilience of the food system, especially in times of economic crisis. In a context of current economic depression, access to sustainable and healthy food poses both challenges and opportunities associated with anti-poverty aspects, social inclusion and the awareness of environmental, economic and health concerns both in urban and rural areas. In Greece, several alternative social movements related to food sovereignty and food and space justice developed due to the crisis in order to deal with issues such as urban poverty, food delocalization and environmental constraints. A series of bottom-up initiatives, informal networks and market-oriented activities that promote alternative short agri-food chains, food-activist, educational or other collective self-help structures empower local production and solidarity-based economy, and encourage rural-urban linkages that ensure food security and nutrition of cities. These types of initiatives favor the emergence of localized consumer-producer networks and spontaneous civic or public initiatives aiming at enhancing local production or reintegrating agriculture into the city (e.g. urban gardens, CSA, MWM, farmers’ markets). At the same time spontaneous public initiatives mainly deriving from the local administration in the framework of their social policy (e.g. municipal gardens, food banks, urban food agendas) respond to the social effects of austerity and are more oriented to combat the crisis’ stress as well as social exclusion. In this perspective, the chapter unfolds alternative food initiatives in Greece and their manifestations through the academic and public discourses as well as through public policy agendas. The focus is on the role played by producer-consumer networks in maintaining and strengthening local food systems, transforming S. Nikolaidou (*) School of Social Sciences, Hellenic Open University, Patras, Greece © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 F. N. Döner et al. (eds.), Crisis and Post-Crisis in Rural Territories, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50581-3_9

163

164

S. Nikolaidou

rural-urban linkages and thus developing new perspectives on food policies. More specifically, MWM and CSA were chosen as two predominant examples of informal consumer-producer networks emerged in the period of crisis in Greece. The aim is to discuss how these two specific networks that appear as alternative socioeconomic models of direct food supply can foster sustainable rural-urban linkages through food production in the rural hinterland and peri-urban areas in relation to public policy transformation. The analysis focuses on two main questions: (a) To what extent do the above practices stimulate and strengthen the small-scale family farming in rural and peri-urban areas (often as a survival or recovery strategy due to economic crisis and urban pressures) and allow the formation of new alliances and reciprocalities between rural and urban areas? (b) How could informal public and civic practices be articulated with formal institutional configurations and policies at the local, national, regional levels and therefore foster the transformation of food systems? The methodological framework of this study is based on a qualitative approach that combines theoretical and empirical research. It draws upon information from a systematic literature review, websites and social media related to the topic of solidarity economy, short-food supply chains, urban resilience, food security and food justice as well as from a personal postdoctoral field research on alternative forms of social and solidarity food networks in Greece (Nikolaidou 2017). Empirical data is comprised of both reviews of relevant legislative and public policy documents on solidarity economy and direct food trading markets as well as participant observation and semi-structured interviews with farmers and consumers engaged in CSA or other box-scheme networks, food activists and representatives from the local administration and the solidarity structures that are responsible for food issues and urban resilience. The qualitative research uses the original results of a fieldwork1 conducted on newly appeared consumer-farmer networks without intermediaries that deliver vegetable baskets in the metropolitan area of Athens. More precisely, 18 in-depth semi-­ structured interviews and discussions were conducted with: four (4) organic farmers that deliver CSA baskets, eight (8) consumers in different neighborhoods of Athens that participate in 3 CSA networks, one (1) online box-scheme distributor based in Attica, one (1) representative from the voluntary initiative ‘Agronaftes’ that promotes CSA networks in Greece, one (1) member of the Solidarity Movement and the consumers’ cooperative of Galatsi ‘Pairno Ambariza’, one (1) representative from the Department of Food Issues – ‘Solidarity for All’ and two (2) from the ‘Urban Resilience Department’ and the ‘Local Food Action Plan’ of the Municipality of Athens. The chapters are structured as follows: the next section includes a brief presentation of the alternative food networks in Greece, emphasizing on descriptive and 1  This fieldwork was part of a postdoctoral fellowship of the author funded by the Research Centre for the Humanities (RCH) for the year 2017, with the support of the John S. Latsis Public Benefit Foundation.

9  Solidarity and Justice in Local Food Systems: The Transformative Potential…

165

explorative findings about producer-consumer networks that mainly emerged during the recent recession. The third section explains how two different kinds of producer-­consumer networks, CSA and MWM, can foster sustainable urban-rural relationships and local food systems. The fourth section presents these informal practices in relation to the main policy reforms and their socio-political potential for food system transformation. Finally, the concluding part sums up the results and discusses how new social practices around local food and alternative food networks can be articulated with the formal institutional configurations and face opportunities and challenges in shifting to a sustainable food system.

9.2  T  he Transformative Aspect of Alternative Food Networks in Greece: Enhancing Solidarity, Justice and Resilience Against Food Insecurity During Crisis Period Over the last decade, resistance initiatives and activism for food and space justice, ranging from the local neighborhood to global action, are broadly emerging worldwide while the food sovereignty of cities becomes a concern in public policy in terms of the sustainability of vulnerable urban environments (Gotlieb and Joshi 2013). Food justice is embedded in the food sovereignty discourse that mainly originates from ideological movements opposing the global food industry, food consumption habits and uneven development (Starr 2010; Cadieux and Slocum 2015). The term includes broader issues associated with urban social change and the raising awareness of environmental, economic, social, labor and health concerns defending the right to sustainable and healthy food systems (Claeys 2015). While the motivations and social needs vary greatly across the global North and South, contemporary ‘food justice’ movements focus more on the ‘access to food rather than the supply of food’ (Morgan 2015:1379) and ‘the right to food as a component of a more democratic and just society’ (Wekerle 2004: 378). Moreover, the increasing levels of urbanization and urban poverty worldwide empower the importance of anti-poverty aspects with emphasis on strengthening resilience for long-term food security and nutrition in cities (Wekerle 2004; Mayer 2005). In Greece, with almost one quarter of the population living now under the threshold of poverty, nutritional questions, accessibility to healthy food and urban food sovereignty have become urgent issues. This economic hardship coupled with the rising agricultural commodity prices in the context of the global economic and food price inflation crisis (2007/2008) increased the probability of household food insecurity. The state which was unable to manage a severe economic crisis introduced more austerity measures induced by the “Troika”. The impacts were more visible on

166

S. Nikolaidou

low income households and more vulnerable social groups2 (unemployment, poverty, decline of the welfare state and low quality of life). In this context, social movements actively challenged austerity measures and neoliberal crisis by introducing new forms of innovative social and economic activities as alternative spontaneous responses to the severe economic, political and humanitarian crisis (Arampatzi 2016; Kavoulakos and Gritzas 2015). Numerous local projects, civil movements, grassroots socio-economic practices as well as public initiatives aiming at coping with severe unemployment and poverty and at securing livelihoods were developed in the frame of Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE). At the same time, there was an increased sensitivity about socio-­ environmental conflicts and the current industrial food production and consumption model (competing land uses, farmland loss, environmental degradation, food crisis). This reinforced local protests and environmental claims that were in favor of preserving local and regional agriculture, ecologically sensitive areas or public spaces for agricultural production and societal use. All these processes enhanced a solidarity food movement building towards local production and consumption, based on food sovereignty, equal relations, justice and democratization, moving away from the industrial agribusiness giants and the middlemen during the crisis. An explosion of grassroots participation boosted creativity and innovation regarding new socio-­economic experiments around self-management and co-operative practices. Thus, collective action and social cooperation emerged ranging from mere subsistence and self-help strategies to cooperatives and/or to market-oriented activities addressing food access and food security, agri-environmental preservation and socio-spatial conflicts. More precisely, among a series of practices and grassroots initiatives for food and space justice that largely appeared during the crisis a main distinction must be done between entrepreneurial and non-entrepreneurial forms of socio-economic activities related to short food-supply chains and direct producer-to-consumer food circuits: (a) Entrepreneurial activities that address collective social entrepreneurship or co-­ operative and solidarity food economy. The most prominent alternative food purchasing schemes in Greece allow direct relations between consumers and producers through solutions such as CSA, MWM, Organic Farmers’ Markets-­ OFM, consumer cooperatives, door-to-door organic boxes and fair-trade entreprises (Preiss et al. 2017; Kavoulakos and Gritzas 2015; Nikolaidou et al. 2017; Backes et al. 2018; Bayourouki and Kosmas 2018). Although a great majority of the SSE initiatives were crisis-ridden, it has to be noted that many 2  Based on the results of the survey on “Income and Living Conditions in Greece” people who are at risk of poverty or social exclusion represent 34.8% (3,701,800 persons) of the total population (Hellenic Statistical Authority 2018). After several years of decline of the welfare state governmental subsidy schemes were implemented within the array of strategies to combat severe economic situation and deep humanitarian crisis (e.g. the Law 4320/2015 “Arrangements for immediate measures to deal with the humanitarian crisis” provides assistance to low-income groups receiving subsidies for food, rent and electricity (Backes et al. 2018).

9  Solidarity and Justice in Local Food Systems: The Transformative Potential…

167

e­ ntrepreneurial forms such as fair-trade shops, organic boxes or OFMs had already stemmed from social, cooperative and agro-environmental movements in a pre-­crisis framework. By contrast, new food purchasing schemes such as CSA, MWM and consumer cooperatives were mainly triggered by political, social, or economic ramifications of the economic crash. There are several interesting examples of a variety of informal self-help structures that began to emerge in major Greek cities during the Greek crisis and were later transformed to formal grocery co-ops, providing an alternative to chain grocery stores and supermarkets. These groceries are organized as consumers’ cooperatives and either operate as retail stores or pre-order buying clubs through socialization of potential profit (e.g. ‘Bios Co-op’3 or ‘Pairno Ampariza’4). Such initiatives illustrate the dynamics and the transformative power of commoning and solidarity food movement through a collective reconfiguration of the local food system. Yet, all these practices aim to change conventional food-consumption habits and purchasing ways by promoting local food at fair prices and ethical consumption opposing large companies and global distribution networks. They shorten the links between production, circulation and consumption (Starr 2010; Ostrom 2008), preserve jobs and local agricultural activity, ensure food security and nutrition while also forging a qualitative turn in the consumption patterns. City dwellers benefit from such alliances by having a direct access to fresh (organic or not), local food at fair prices and on a stable basis, while supporting small and midsize farms and the SSE (Preiss et  al. 2017; Petropoulou 2016; Anthopoulou and Partalidou 2015; Partalidou 2015;  Nikolaidou et  al. 2017; Petrou 2015). (b) Non-entrepreneurial, non-monetary forms of solidarity networks and initiatives that mainly appeared during crisis are very diverse. Some of them have a humanitarian, emergency and solidarity character against poverty, social insecurity and food insufficiency. A variety of collective self-help structures, neighborhood-­based practices and other self-organized networks that promote self-sufficiency were initiated both by public and civic actors. For example, food-aid initiatives such as social groceries, solidarity kitchens or school meals providing free meals, vegetables, clothes and other household items for those in need were set up by citizens, NGO’s, private companies, the church of Greece 3  For example, ‘Bios Co-op’, the nonprofit retail grocery in Thessaloniki operates as a social consumers’ cooperative since 2013 and counts over 400 members. With the motto ‘We take our food in our hands!’ as it states on its website, the cooperative aims to provide ‘high quality, affordable products’ and to ‘support consumers as well as local producers in an environmentally friendly way’ (http://www.bioscoop.gr/p/the-purpose-of-cooperative-purpose-of-c_22.html) 4  The social and cultural space of solidarity ‘Pairno Ambariza’ (Galatsi, Athens) started as an informal group of active volunteers at the neighborhood scale and was transformed to an Urban Coop (since 2015) in order to better organize and control their humanitarian and socio-political actions. Inspired by the ‘potato movement’ and the increasing food insecurity, the Coop runs a MWM where citizens can order a ‘basket’ of foods at a pre-determined price on a monthly basis. Hybrid modes of work organization have emerged with coexistence of paid and unpaid/volunteer work with remuneration in kind (http://pernoampariza.wordpress.com/)

168

S. Nikolaidou

and municipalities as emergency structures related to food and poverty. Vegetable gardens are the most prominent examples of public and civic initiatives aiming at home production of fresh vegetables within cities. For example, municipal allotment gardens emerged in 2011 and were replicated by many local authorities in Greece as social policy schemes to tackle poverty and depression of vulnerable social groups affected by the economic crisis.5 In addition, other bottom-up initiatives propose solutions against food insecurity, environmental degradation and neo-liberal policies of privatization of public land and natural resources. The most representative examples are the self-governed guerrilla gardens, the local food-activist networks and other subsistence-­ oriented types of urban and peri-urban agriculture. For instance, two emblematic cases of guerilla gardens of ‘Agros Helliniko’ in Athens and ‘Per.Ka gardens’ in Thessaloniki are both unauthorized land occupations on contested public brownfields pending construction and privatization.6 Moreover, seed banks and groups for the preservation of traditional varieties (e.g. Peliti, in Drama, a city in the north of Greece or “Courtyard of gardeners” in Aigaleo, Athens), eco-festivals and eco-communities also promote food and seed sovereignty and sustainable agriculture. All the above-mentioned initiatives that derive from grassroots citizen movements are based on local self-governance, voluntary work-groups, non-profit and social solidarity actions proposing alternative forms of production, space appropriation, social interaction and decision-­ making (Nikolaidou and Kolokouris 2016). A diversity of other informal solidarity and resistance initiatives during the crisis address social care services (social clinics and pharmacies with free medical examination) or educational, cultural and social activities (e.g. social centers, school gardens, social schools such as conservatories or schools for migrant and refugee children, social consulting groups, time banks etc.).

9.3  C  ommunity Supported Agriculture and Markets Without Middlemen as Alternative Social and Economic Places Beyond Crisis This section focuses on the presentation of two types of direct food purchasing networks between producers and consumers that flourished during the crisis: CSA and MWM. The purpose of this analysis is to explain how these networks behave and to examine potential similarities and differences between them regarding the 5  Since 2013, municipal gardens were proposed by the Ministry of Labor and Social Solidarity to operate within the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF 2007–2013, co-financed by the European Cohesion Fund) under a specific action “Social structures for immediate fighting against poverty” (Anthopoulou et al. 2018). 6  ‘Agros Helliniko’ was a 2500m2 urban farm situated in the former national airport of Athens and ‘Per.Ka’ on a former military camp in Thessaloniki in the outskirts of the city.

9  Solidarity and Justice in Local Food Systems: The Transformative Potential…

169

governance, the supply chain, the food production methods and the producer–consumer interactions in each (Preiss et al. 2017). A more detailed description of each movement is presented below:

9.3.1  Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) CSA networks are based on a direct cooperation between producers and consumer groups with mutual trust, shared benefits and responsibilities between the participants (https://urgenci.net/vison-and-mission/, Anthopoulou and Partalidou 2015). Typically, the consumers that participate in this form of network buy a basket of fresh, organic products (mainly vegetables or/and fruits) on a weekly basis. The variety, the quantity and the cost of the products that are included in the basket are predefined by the producer in order to achieve fair prices for mutual benefit. However, in Greece, these networks differ from other predominant CSA forms in Europe, in the USA or in Canada mainly because there is neither a financial commitment in the form of subscription/membership nor a stable engagement for the consumer sold prior to season. Therefore, no consumer financial risk is associated with a season’s harvest. Crop failure or any other operational risks only concern farmers, and consumers can only share a risk of consuming if they decide to buy during a poor harvest. Hence, these networks essentially rely on the mutual trust gained through the personal relations and social networks and the sales of fresh organic vegetables are directed to individuals or consumer groups at affordable price without taking into consideration the important factor of risk sharing. According to the results of a fieldwork conducted on alternative food networks in Athens (Nikolaidou 2017), the growth of CSA schemes and the increasing demand for locally grown products is both an opportunity and a challenge for small and medium scale producers. Farmers face several pressures that vary according to the farm size and scale, the crop mix and growing practices, the labor demands and the needs and desires of farmers and their families. The organization at the farm scale, the sales coordination and the distribution problems are considered as three of the most difficult tasks. Nevertheless, given their small/medium farm size, unstable factors such as unpredictable weather conditions and the limited variety of products throughout the year are great challenges and the matters of great concern. Moreover, the fact that there is no stable consumer network makes it difficult to coordinate orders per group and per neighborhood, as the lack of self-organized consumer groups makes things more complicated. The main motivation for producers to participate in CSA networks is to have access to direct distribution networks that are alternatives to conventional/organic open markets or super-markets (where competition is harder). Producers perceive these networks as new economic and social forms of conciliation that help them eliminate food waste by selling all of their harvest production and allow them to give access to affordable high-quality fresh food to a wider range of social groups. They mainly focus on the potential to connect production with consumption and the

170

S. Nikolaidou

possibility to strengthen proximity agriculture at the regional scale. However, greater emphasis is put on the fact that the economic viability of CSA is linked to the social interaction and the personal bond with the consumer that builds trust and reliability, i.e. the appreciation of both the price and the quality on the basis of mutual benefit. In addition, the growing concern about the impacts of mainstream food industry seems to be the main drive for consumers that seek to adopt a healthier diet. The emphasis is placed on access to healthy and delicious food at affordable price, stressing the fair relation between price, perceived quality and perceived value. Consumers mostly rely on relations that create respect, trust, and a sort of commitment by developing a social link and direct contact with the producer. Moreover, they feel satisfied by supporting locally produced foods and environmentally friendly practices. The general point of view of the consumers interviewed considers these networks as a realm of solidarity and social justice where both sides (producer and consumer) claim to have an advantageous combination of cost, quality and the direct relationship with the farmer (value for money). Farmers find another way to sell products and it is with solidarity practices that they open up to the society and the local community. This develops a bond that helps both sides be viable … the crisis has caused several problems that you somehow had to overcome,

explains a consumer that buys CSA baskets in Athens. Regarding the socio-­ economic profile of consumers, the study shows that most of the people broadly belong to middle class with many people among them affected by the recent economic crisis. However, there is low representativity of very low-income groups and, seen through the prism of class, income, ethnicity and affordability (Goodman 2009), there is an evident absence of a wider range of social strata (poor strata, elderly, immigrants) Nevertheless, it should be noted that justice and price fairness are contested when both consumers and farmers admit that the basket is sold much cheaper than it should be because of the crisis. In most of the cases the price is 10 euros for a predefined basket of 10 kilos of vegetables. Another consumer of a CSA network in Athens describes the basket as: a ‘survivor’s’ basket. It is very just and fair in the sense that it is value for money, actually it is cheaper than it should be … moreover, you will always get more for free when there is an over-production (I.T., 2017, pers. comm., September).

From the farmers’ point of view, although they appear to also target consumers that do face some budgetary restrictions, they still outline the fact that they rely on farming for their livelihoods. Antonis, member of a CSA farmers’ network in Corinth

9  Solidarity and Justice in Local Food Systems: The Transformative Potential…

171

(‘Corinthian Orchards’)7 stresses that their survival strategies express their need for more reasonable prices without threatening their own livelihood. According to T.A., another CSA farmer8 in Attica, the future of the CSA baskets is highly challenged: I sell the basket cheaper than I should, it should be sold for at least 15 euros. But I sell it at cost price (10 euros) because the basket has another meaning for me. The crisis has certainly played a role. If you would like to buy a basket, would you give 15 euros? Would you? … Half of the people buy it because it is cheap. There are many people who say that they haven’t got enough money to pay, you see others counting coins. This shows something about their financial situation (T.A., 2017, pers. comm. October).

In this sense, there is an inverted perception of justice, a negative price-quality relationship that invokes the crisis context and makes farmers a bit more price-sensitive regarding the future viability of their business.

9.3.2  Markets Without Middlemen (MWM) The so-called “Markets Without Middlemen” (in Greek: Agores Horis Mesazontes) emerged as an innovative grassroots answer to the financial crisis by letting consumers buy food straight from producers. These informal markets started in 2012 when a volunteer action group in a small town in northern Greece (Katerini) began to distribute potatoes at low prices as an expression of solidarity to farmers, resistance to the crisis and the intense social demand for cheap food without intermediaries. As a Voluntary Action Group member explains, it all started when this group decided to invite farmers to trade their products directly to consumers in their hometown, Katerini. According to Saliba (2013: 1): in less than a day, 24 tones of potatoes had been ordered through our website. We asked them what a fair price would be and we agreed on 0.25 cents a kilo – a third of the price in supermarkets.

This initiative that became known as the ‘Potato Movement’ quickly spread to many cities across Greece and triggered a broader ‘without middlemen’ movement. Direct distributions led by producers and consumers were mainly developed in big cities such as Athens and Thessaloniki where groups of activists organized open-air markets in several public places, usually in squares, school yards, parking areas and other open spaces. Orders were arranged through self-organized consumers’ 7  This group of CSA producers is situated around 80 kilometers away from Athens and has a recent activity on solidarity exports to individual CSA’s, social spaces and other SSE actors abroad. These exports concern only goods that are not available in other countries, such as citrus and oranges and add economic viability. 8  This farmer also organizes open farm visits and since 2011 operates an alternative eco-school in collaboration with farmers and experts for organic farming methods and practices (for more information see: https://oikosxoleio.wordpress.com/)

172

S. Nikolaidou

cooperatives, solidarity initiatives and other self-help structures (Rakopoulos 2014; Petrou 2015; Backes et al. 2018). As the movement gained popularity, a wide variety of products started to be sold (potatoes, flour, honey, olive oil, rice, legumes, etc.) responding to the food needs of economically depressed urban households while also protecting the interests of national production and local farmers from cheaper vegetable imports. These markets operate as an alternative supply-chain to mass retailers, in most cases systematized by activists, self-help and solidarity groups of citizens and consumers’ coops who jointly organize their food purchases and arrange for regular deliveries by regional farmers based on the organizational commitment of volunteers (Xarli 2017). Small and medium-scale farmers benefit from participating in such networks because they can sell a big part of their harvest production, at a fair price and without middlemen. Cutting out middlemen in food trading relations was primarily an inventive solution to challenge trade restrictions and distortions in the agro-food supply chain in a crisis-prone context, in order to ensure the economic viability of farmers, control speculation and reduce the price for the consumer. In practice, potato prices have fallen by two or three times, while correspondingly similar practices have been also attempted for other products such as meat, oil, rice etc. (Pautz and Kominou 2013; Bayourouki and Kosmas 2018). According to a newspaper article by Henley (2015), consumers can find products that are significantly cheaper than in the supermarket while farmers sell their produce for 25% more than they would get from the supermarkets. For urban consumers, the motivation is not just buying qualitative goods at affordable prices, but also actively participating in citizens’ movements, strengthening social solidarity in the city and supporting small family farming and independent producers (Petrou 2015). Despite their success, MWM were deeply influenced by the regulatory and institutional constraints because existing legal provisions regarding permits to sell directly in public spaces were not applicable. The majority of MWM have been mainly forged at the grass-roots level through a variety of community groups, activists and neighborhood initiatives as well as by some public municipal authorities that have “informally” allowed them to operate because of their popularity. It has to be noted however, that, in the absence of regulatory framework, a great number of local authorities did not authorize these markets, resulting in lots of them being threatened to be downsized or even shut down. Few remaining initiatives that currently exist operate either in nonregulated ways or under the recent legal framework that includes producers and consumers markets in the realm of outdoor commercial activities (Law 4497/2017). In this context, MWM are approved and managed by municipalities in collaboration with volunteers (for more information see Sect. 9.5). From a comparative perspective, the new patterns of alternative social and economic places that have been developed through CSA and MWM contribute to more sustainable urban–rural linkages and a new appreciation for rural production. The growing concern of consumers about the environmental effects of food production and consumption model and their need to understand of both where their food comes from and the processes involved, reinforced their interest to consume local

9  Solidarity and Justice in Local Food Systems: The Transformative Potential…

173

and regional food. As consumers’ interest in ‘buying local’ was increasing, a closer relationship between producers and consumers was developed. Thus, in opposition to the large agribusinesses and retail networks, these small-scale direct marketing networks on the one hand restore trust relationships between producers and consumers and foster social ties, and, on the other, they contribute to shortening food chains. Nevertheless, it becomes clear that not both forms of alternative food initiatives are equivalent in terms of governance, supply chain, food production methods and producer–consumer interaction (Preiss et al. 2017). CSA and MWM are characterized by the need to reduce or eliminate the middlemen in order to promote affordable and localized food networks as well as reconnect farmers and consumers (Preiss et al. 2017). However, different features, motivations and social interactions can be found among the consumers and producers involved in the CSA networks and MWM. Yet, they could not a priori be equated with sustainable food systems (ibid.). While CSA networks (together with OFMs and fair-trade enterprises) make organic vegetables more accessible and affordable to city dwellers compared to supermarkets or specialized organic shops, MWM rather focus more on affordable local food supply of conventional products in bulk. This means that a very crucial aspect of the analysis shows that producers who participate in MWM do not necessarily operate on the basis of common ethical and environmental criteria. Therefore, they neither go beyond the narrow market and monetary view of the economy, nor have shared values or considerations for economic sustainability, social justice and ecological balance (Hillenkamp et al. 2013). In this context, reciprocity and solidarity cannot be equated with all of the above-mentioned socioeconomic practices while divergent conventions and manifestations are negotiated across consumers and producers (Raynolds 2002). A closer observation of the case of MWM that are organized by non-profit associations of consumers shows on the one hand that labor is based on voluntary or semi-voluntary commitment of volunteers. On the other hand, producers that participate in MWM might be conventional enterprises that are not part of a wider not-for profit social economy, based on the principles of democratic self-management and participatory governance. This contrasting approach establishes a critical distinction between ‘conventional’ and ‘alternative’ that may occasionally coexist in a wider variety of direct food provisioning practices, collaborative experiences and interrelated spaces, mutually influencing each other (Preiss et al. 2017: 2). Referring to the crisis and framing their action in relation to it, both types of networks aim to counter the unjust effects of austerity and underscore the role of solidarity and resistance in a state of humanitarian crisis and economic collapse. The direct disposal of products primarily fights the high prices of the market and ensures the right to equal access to fresh food (organic or not) at affordable prices for all socio-professional groups of the population. Hence, the new food purchasing schemes without intermediaries are considered to keep both sides sustainable and livable: cheap qualitative products for consumers and support of the small-scale farmers within Greece, thus resisting to cheaper food imports that undermine local

174

S. Nikolaidou

food production. Openness to the society and inclusiveness are also visible through ample political and social actions that target households facing survival problems. However, it should be noted that the scope of these alternative food networks expands beyond the crisis per se. This means that they do not merely address people in need in the context of the austerity memorandum. Most of these initiatives are also part of a wider participatory solidarity movement promoting social and environmental change, empowerment and participation (Papadaki and Kalogeraki 2018) while familiarizing people with the logic of self-organization. According to the online media outlet of ‘Solidarity for All9’, participation to solidarity initiatives is mainly inspired by a threefold purpose of solidarity-resistance-self-organization. However, as Rakopoulos states (2015: 166), the main weakness of this form of participation ‘relies on the voluntary commitments of their members’. In his opinion, the emergence of anti-middleman activity and solidarity economy in Greece constitutes a form of politicized social practice in a politically radicalized environment ‘where antithetical notions, such as debt and solidarity, give meaning to each other (id.: 163). Data from personal field work and interviews show that alternative food markets are perceived by producers and consumers as new ways of production and distribution, opposing to supermarkets and the dominant globalized food system. Some of the main key concepts that derive from their narratives are democracy, participation, solidarity, trust, responsibility, offer, selflessness and dignity. Specific references to solidarity clearly distinguish it from philanthropy, and alternative food markets are mainly discussed in ideological terms. When interviewed, Katerina a CSA consumer in Athens quotes: There is reciprocality when I buy the basket; both sides have a return also in material/economic terms, otherwise it would have been a form of charity (K.P., 2017 pers. comm., September).

As Mr. K.V., responsible of the food sector of ‘Solidarity for All’ explains, the economic crisis drives a new focus on solidarity and food waste: SSE fills the gap left from the welfare state collapse. Solidarity means caring about the other, it is an equal relationship with no hierarchies. It is a relationship of trust. Solidarity is a necessary condition for the society’s existence. … Among the thousands we count in our lists approximately about 1,500 producers who participate in these MWM networks and other solidarity actions. … While people suffer from the effects of hunger, there is wasted food that could have fed those in need and would be crucial to the country’s ability to feed itself (K.V., 2017, pers. comm., September).

9  ‘Solidarity for all’ is an open collective created in 2012, which identifies and supports the many social solidarity initiatives across the country. It offers technical support, capacity building, and network-scaling by enhancing all existing structures in every possible way (with materials and people, financial support etc.) and promotes the creation of new collectives in areas or issues that are not covered (http://solidarity4all.gr/)

9  Solidarity and Justice in Local Food Systems: The Transformative Potential…

175

9.4  F  ostering Sustainable Urban-Rural Relationships and Local Food Systems The aim of this chapter is to show how the aforementioned kinds of producer-­ consumer networks (CSA and MWM) can foster sustainable urban-rural linkages and provide an opportunity for small agricultural units to rebound through alternative socioeconomic models of direct food supply, reversing the previous trends of weakening. These linkages are connected with claims for food justice, fair prices for producers and consumers, protection and preservation of agricultural land and the environment as a common good. As can be seen in the international literature and in numerous empirical studies, alternative food initiatives help population relink with local food production and (rural or peri-urban) producers reconnect with (urban) consumers. These proximity or short food supply chains (proximity agriculture), include different forms of distribution in which producers and consumers are geographically, socially and organizationally close and generally no more than one intermediary is involved in the relations between the two parts (Torre 2014; Leloup 2016; Kebir and Torre 2013; ECLAC-FAO-IICA 2015; Aubry and Kebir 2013). Proximity may stimulate the preservation and strengthening of family farming in the rural and peri-urban areas close to the cities, often as a survival or recovery strategy against economic crisis and urban development pressures. New rural-urban relations are reorganized on the basis of reciprocity and solidarity. In addition, seeking more sustainable food production and consumption systems as a response to the unsustainable food chains with huge environmental impacts stimulates a more agroecological approach in the policy-making by providing environmental sustainability, climate resiliency and higher agro-biodiversity. They allow both ‘re -socialization and re-spatialization of food’ (Renting et  al. 2003: 398) and new social and spatial proximity relations between the city and rural areas (Galli and Brunori 2013; Petropoulou 2016), by recognizing the importance of urban food planning, especially in times of crisis (Folke et al. 2002; Bottiglieri et al. 2016). Local food movements directly inform urban consumers about how, where and by whom their food is grown, reshape the relation between cities, their peri-urban fringes and deeper rural hinterlands, and therefore strengthen local and regional food systems and organic agriculture. In Greece, the newly emerging CSA networks appear as another alternative to the OFMs that have been operating for 25  years now. They seem to be a novel way to promote local, fresh and organic food straight from producers at a lower price compared to OFM or other specialized organic shops. Both farmers’ markets and CSA have a positive impact on the sustainability of peri-urban areas of the big cities and major metropolitan areas, by preserving agricultural enclaves and the remaining organic farmers operating on proximity supply chains. Therefore, the proximity of the supply chain and the production methods are important ecological factors contributing to the agroecological transition process (e.g. short distance between production and consumption and reduced food miles, fair prices, organic agriculture, low packaging use) (Silici 2014). What

176

S. Nikolaidou

is more, MWM foster production in the rural hinterland at the regional and national scale while providing beneficial economic solutions for urban dwellers. They constitute a marketing channel for artisanal, small scale or marginalized (rural) producers while valorizing and protecting local knowledge and regional food cultures. However, according to Rakopoulos (2014) this movement is rather perceived as a means of political awareness (sensitization) and a protest against the austerity measures and social exclusion that benefits producers and minimizes consumer costs. Both types of initiatives encompass a wide range of innovative projects at the individual or collective levels (farms, cooperatives, producer groups, etc.), in all stages of production, processing and marketing of agricultural products by local producers or new farmers (organic and conventional farms, small dairies, visitable wineries, beekeepers, free-range poultry farmers, etc.). These networks serve villages, cities and major metropolitan areas via all forms of short distribution networks (open street markets, farmers’ markets and MWM, consumers’ cooperatives, social centers, small specialized shops etc.) and enhance city’s sustainability vision. Sustainability is addressed in social, ecological and economic terms and advocates for food security and food sovereignty (Anthopoulou et  al. 2015; Claeys 2015; RUAF 2015). Moreover, the proximity of the supply chains means that products travel a short distance between production and consumption. In terms of economic viability, CSA and MWM create both opportunities and challenges for small-scale family farms. Although it is an undisputed fact that they support the economical sustainability of farms, still one may wonder how fair and just the price for the mutual benefit of both parties is when it is affordable only for the consumers. According to the farmers that participate in CSA networks in Athens, direct food linkages to cities do not necessarily enable all farmers to consistently make a living from season to season (Nikolaidou 2017, 2018). They can also increase labor time, organization and coordination demands. Moreover, given that both models are mostly operating throughout the crisis period, they are less remunerative for the farmers because they target more reasonable prices. As a result, farmers’ perceptions of resilience are not just connected with money, they also count on appreciation, trust and social embeddedness. Nevertheless, what distinguishes CSA from MWM is the fact that the latter has not been proven to radically change the main rules and practice of conventional trade. Despite the fact that consumers in MWM claim their right to choose quality, price and traceable origin of food and build a stable relation with producers in order to establish a relationship of reciprocity, trust and solidarity, they do not comply with either general fair trade’s values, democratic governance practices, organic farming methods, or a cooperative structure (Rakopoulos 2014). Thus, fairness and trust are not necessarily connected with transparency and secured rights in terms of labor conditions, social inclusion or environmentally friendly food production methods. Therefore, the discussion around the preservation of agricultural production and the importance of the agri-food sector through urban food initiatives (especially in big cities or in metropolitan areas where there is a large number of consumers) becomes a significant element for building resilience to food crisis and creating

9  Solidarity and Justice in Local Food Systems: The Transformative Potential…

177

sustainable rural environments. Peri-urban agricultural systems and new forms of food provisioning are linked to issues such as food quality, food safety in regional and local supply, ethical consumption, as well as open and natural space preservation. They mainly have to deal with the strong pressures of urbanization and the challenges of environmental degradation and food insecurity. As a result, they are embedded in wider social, ecological and agri-environmental networks of the city by providing the means of preserving environmental (biodiversity, management of environmentally sensitive areas and biotopes, land and water resources management, agroforestry) and social functions (social bond between the city, the countryside and the nature, recreation, open spaces, landscapes, etc). The relation between rural and urban environments can be seen through direct food supply schemes that are gaining broad recognition in multiple aspects of urban sustainability and resilience. Since the ways in which food consumption patterns change and the socio-economic and environmental dimensions of food safety and security are largely overlooked in debates; policy and practice around alternative short-food chains have to be readdressed. The promotion of peri-urban agriculture, food policies towards green growth, tenable economic development and resilient food systems are core components of the sustainability goals of the cities and urban-­ rural relations.

9.5  F  ood Sovereignty and Solidarity Economy: Informal Practices and Policy Reforms for Food System Transformation These direct networks between consumers and producers are informal and self-­ organized practices with no clear institutional framework under which they can legally operate. CSA and MWM that were created during the crisis had until very recently a (semi)-illegal status and they were not formally represented in public discourse. Due to the lack of legislation, these practices were actually embedded in informally constructed socio-economic structures leading local administration to realize that the informal economy was becoming a crucial factor in economic recovery. Eventually, ‘informal’ and ‘flexible’ public policies also had a reforming effect even on the national level by giving formalization perspectives to a number of local solidarity partnerships among producers and consumers. More specifically, it has become clear that the power of political will of the cities was a key factor that helped overcome legal constraints. There were several spontaneous municipal responses that facilitated the development and the operation of informal food networks by recognizing the value of promoting local and regional products. For instance, there was a promotion in some cases of self-organized actions and consumer-led or producer-led MWM through ‘informal’ partnerships with local administration. In the latter case, municipalities collaborated with collectivities and volunteers allowing farmers to use municipal space for the markets

178

S. Nikolaidou

once per month. Moreover, school gardens or numerous municipal vegetable gardens have been created since 2011 with the support of EU Funds (Anthopoulou et al. 2018). Vegetable gardens were also broadly recognized and consolidated at the municipal level as a social welfare structure and several initiatives were developed in order to alleviate socioeconomic and psychological effects of the crisis. This recognition gave space to the updated national zoning code (2018) to allow urban gardening in residential areas as a new land use category. Thus, food sovereignty became part of the political debate and an increasing priority for local administration during the crisis. These dynamics created favorable circumstances for more municipalities to include food policy in the urban agenda, by creating food councils, or by stimulating regulation efforts and partnerships to support local and regional food resources. For example, the Local Action Plan that was developed in the context of the European Program URBACT II (2012) aimed to build an urban strategy for an accessible, sustainable, fair and healthy food system in the city of Athens. According to G. Keranis (responsible for this program), despite the willingness of the municipal authorities to collaborate with several solidarity structures and food initiatives, participatory politics and civil society’s involvement in policy programming were rather weak. At the same time, the lack of a legal ‘backup’ could not ‘allow’ the municipality to recognize MWM and CSA as social enterprises or other retail market schemes. Under these circumstances, this municipal action was rather a political initiative than a well-structured and long-term policy for food security and was limited to few public gastronomic events and visibility actions for initiatives that already existed (e.g. educative vegetable gardens within the schoolyards). After a few years in which these grassroots dynamics have been generated and consolidated into social processes, collaborative partnerships and institutional innovations are now emerging at the local scale and reforms are triggered by this kind of legitimization processes of informal practices. Specific areas of policy intervention are rather related with relevant debates and public policies on SSE and resilience against crisis impacts (Adam 2016). New public areas for novel policies and legal instruments have opened due to the solidarity movement and the everyday practices that were developed in the context of the crisis and have been proven to be extraordinary resilient to the impacts of the crisis. Legal instruments such as the first legal framework on Social Cooperative Enterprises adopted in 2011 (Law 4019/2011) and the recently introduced Law on SSE (Law 4430/2016) govern the legal relations for operating civil and agricultural cooperatives and establish important supportive structures like the Regional Support Centers, which will provide free support and advice for SSE enterprises and the Social Economy Fund (Adam 2017). In this context of legal reforms, the institutionalization of MWM was introduced in 2017 as a new type of open street markets called ‘Consumers’ Markets’ by giving the organizing initiative to associations of citizens and consumers’ cooperatives. According to the new law (Article 37, Law 4497/2017) ‘the purpose of these markets is to develop consumer consciousness and solidarity between citizens through the active participation of citizens themselves in voluntary actions and non-profit organizations’. Professional farmers, cooperatives, producer groups and

9  Solidarity and Justice in Local Food Systems: The Transformative Potential…

179

organizations, women’s cooperatives, enterprises and organizations of SSE, Social Cooperative Enterprises (SCE) and small-scale food craft businesses have the right to participate as sellers in these markets. However, this law has been blamed as bureaucratic, because it is considered to give more power and control to municipalities, by giving them the exclusive right of licensing, while restricting the dynamics and self-governance of solidarity structures and movements. At the same time, Greece is also experiencing an important institutional change that is associated with a new legislation for farmers’ markets. The Law 4492/2017 intends to remove some of the chronic institutional barriers that inhibited direct sales of locally grown organic food products without intermediaries. Although OFMs have existed in Greece since the 1980s, they were not legally recognized until the beginning of 2018. There are more than 40 OFMs all over Greece that have been operating until now informally, with around 250 farmers who sell their products in 25 market-spots in Attica and 50 farmers in 4 markets in Thessaloniki.10 Overcoming this chronic institutional blocking can be considered as one of the most important political factors that could ensure decent terms of direct sales of fresh organic products. This new law separates organic from conventional open markets (laiki agora) that until now allow both vendors and farmers to be involved in the sales by licensing direct sales exclusively for organic producers (despite the objections from the vendors’ side). In this way, farmers can create groups and entities that can obtain regional legal permits for the creation of outdoor farmers’ markets exclusively for organically grown produce without intermediaries and merchants in several neighborhoods. Taking into consideration the aforementioned points, it is important to stress the fact that whether formal or informal, these emerging SSE networks were triggered by Greece’s debt crisis and ‘the need for more ‘direct’ democracy and ‘immediate’ economy’ (Rakopoulos 2015:76). Both types of initiatives, either established-­prior-­ to-the-crisis or recently emerging movements, had a dual transformative effect on socio-economic processes and the institutional framework. As part of social processes, they gradually became themselves the trigger factor for institutional change and favorable legislation. They, therefore, produced rapid legal and institutional changes that highlight the importance for supporting SSE initiatives as a distinct economic model and rebuilding the cooperative development. The promotion of an alternative production and consumption model based on participatory democracy in decision-making, solidarity and parity between the members and non-profit activities became a reality. More particularly, the support or realization of MWM and other food solidarity structures for tackling poverty and social exclusion triggered the debate on food sufficiency and the need to preserve agricultural activities in rural and peri-urban areas.

10  See more on: ‘Association of Organic Farmers of Attica’, http://www.bioagores.org/ and ‘Organic Farmers’ Markets of Northern Greece’, https://www.biologikesagores.gr/

180

S. Nikolaidou

9.6  Conclusion In summary, this chapter shows that food and agriculture have gained renewed attention in recent years of social, economic and environmental crises. Civil society and consumers can be considered as an important local force that has an active role in reinforcing the effects at the local production and small and medium-scale farming, interacts with urban and rural environment, and eventually forms the agro-­ ecological dynamics/change in the peri-urban areas (Renting et  al. 2012). More specifically, initiatives and alternative social movements that deal with food re-­ localization favoured the emergence of localised consumer-producer networks and spontaneous civic or public initiatives. The newly emerging CSA baskets and other locally based agriculture and food distribution movements such as the MWM or local organic markets, food and consumer cooperatives (Social Consumer Cooperative Groceries, fair trade and solidarity/social entrepreneurship), all support small and medium-scale farming in the peri-urban fringe of big cities and in the rural hinterland, local agricultural cooperatives and grocers. This enables a more direct, fair, affordable, transparent and environmentally friendly approach to the production-distribution-consumption cycle that promotes locally produced agricultural goods through co-operation with producers. However, do these two new social practices regarding local food imply a hidden rurality that empowers farming enclaves in peri-urban areas and rural hinterland by also contributing to farmers’ resilience? Undoubtedly, these practices are good examples of survival strategies of small and medium-sized family farms, local food chains and sustainable agriculture as a whole, especially during economic hardship. Despite the growing metropolitan demand for better food quality, the rise of short distribution chains, the cooperation between higher number of consumers and producers at the local and regional levels and a more radical reconstruction of local and regional production and consumption systems are rather difficult tasks. It seems that it is extremely difficult for CSA networks to be recognized as the mainstream paradigm of ecological, political, and socio-economic practice because they compete with the dominant market structures (supermarket chains, Small and medium -sized enterprises-SMEs, wholesalers, intermediaries). Moreover, the rapid growth, expansion and wide acceptance of the MWM at the early stage of their development, was in some cases, followed by a decline mainly because of legal obstacles, repression by several local authorities or organizational problems. Both networks have the potential to scale up, grow, and attract more consumers and producers under the prism of local and alternative short agri-food chains. However, changing the food production and distribution models needs a wider approach and a change of attitude, reconfiguration of routines and integration of new complexes of production-­ consumption into the practices of daily life. It is further noticed that these alternative initiatives remain relatively invisible compared to the main consumption trends and remain vulnerable because of the chronic absence of institutional legitimization. Nevertheless, there is an increasingly important role of cities as political factors for regulatory restructuring. The

9  Solidarity and Justice in Local Food Systems: The Transformative Potential…

181

gradual recognition of urban food security and its inclusion in the urban and public policy agenda are important first steps for reforming the city’s agri-food system, but seem to be inadequate for the overall sustainability of alternative food networks. Local authorities get into food policy and urban resilience discourse through the implementation of strategies with a more agri-environmental orientation and institutional reforms are triggered by legitimization processes (e.g. law proposals on MWM, on the inclusion of urban agriculture as a specific category of uses and on OFMs). Still, not only do long-term urban food policies and strong partnerships between rural and urban areas have to be established through new relations between consumers, producers, institutions and citizens, but they also need to be framed by favorable legislation which is able to facilitate development and reform efforts. These policies should foster relations of production, distribution and consumption by taking into account market forces as well as non-economic factors and principles such as cooperation, reciprocity, democracy, equality, solidarity and environmental respect. These new social and geographical proximity relationships that define alternative food networks can provide a perspective for symbiotic relations between urban and rural settings by boosting peri-urban agriculture based on the principles of both socio-environmental protection and preservation of biodiversity and local natural resources. Despite the decreasing importance of agriculture and the increasing pressures on land resources that has led to unsustainable land-use practices in rural metropolitan areas, recent local food production and distribution networks help maintain social cohesion and protect landscape and the natural environment while providing many potential advantages for improving the living conditions and reducing the environmental pressures in wider urban areas. In short, they can improve nutrition and food security by allowing access to healthy food and by strengthening self-sufficiency strategies and social justice as an alternative to the globalized agri-­ food model. To conclude, in this era of crisis for globalized trade, and with the free-market as the dominant organizational model, direct access to fresh, healthy food through newly emerging networks has a potential to support local food production and reconnect people and land while rebuilding consumers’ trust in food. Whether one refers to CSA, MWI or farmers’ markets, these short circuits eventually succeeded in creating new models of socio-economic organization and experimentation against the crisis, introducing both ideas and actions to the concept of SSE. It is important to note that consumers have played a significant role in the emergence and installation of these types of alternative distribution networks. Resistance to the crisis has become largely associated with the right to food and terms such as solidarity, social justice and food security. At the same time, the rising consumers’ demand for quality local products including ideas of distance traveled by products, regional production or socio-environmental impacts of the mainstream food system has increased the importance for agricultural production near cities. Through direct democratic and participatory processes, self-organization, voluntary contributions of goods or services these networks influenced production patterns, increased food security and changed consumer expectations and practices, benefiting both consumers and

182

S. Nikolaidou

farmers. More and more consumers support and create new links with nearby farmers through short circuits thus reshaping urban-rural relations and building the resilience of local food systems. They appear in numerous forms: new cooperative economic spaces, alternative food purchasing schemes, consumers’ co-ops and social networking alliances that aim to inhibit food insecurity, ecological degradation and social inequality. Yet the role of public institutions seems important in terms of facilitating a dynamic grassroots movement and partnerships that contribute to a ‘moralization’ of food economies (Renting et al. 2012). The support structures put in place at the local level to address urgent food insecurity concerns (municipal solidarity structures and humanitarian assistance) and the recent favorable legal reforms (Laws on SSE, Farmers’ Markets, MWM) forge an ethical framework of ecological agriculture connected to a fair and solidarity economy. Nonetheless, flexibility and adaptation to changing circumstances beyond the crisis per se as well as long term commitment can be the key aspects of successful alliances that encourage reformulation of democratic governance and institutional change.

References Adam S (2016) Social and solidarity economy and the crisis: policy challenges and opportunities. http://icconsssocuocgr/images/ecp/ICCONSS_16_8_4pdf. Accessed 26 June 2018 Adam S (2017) Social solidarity economy in Greece: a priority agenda. Available via Heinrich-­ Böll-­Stiftung Greece. https://gr.boell.org/en/2017/10/04/social-solidarity-economy-greecepriority-agenda. Accessed 26 May 2018 Anthopoulou T, Partalidou M (2015) Εναλλακτικά αγροτροφικά δίκτυα και νέες αλληλέγγυες εταιρικότητες μεταξύ πόλης και υπαίθρου. Διερευνώντας την κοινοτικά υποστηριζόμενη γεωργία. Γεωγραφίες 25:13–23 Anthopoulou T, Kolokouris Ο, Nikolaïdou S, Partalidou M (2015) Aux arbres citoyens! Le mouvement d’agriculture urbaine, une forme participative d’appropriation de l’espace. In: Vianey G, Requier-Desjardins M, Paoli JC (eds) Accaparement, action publique, stratégies individuelles et ressources naturelles: regards croisés sur la course aux terres et à l’eau en contextes méditerranéens, Options Méditerranéennes: Série B. Etudes et Recherches (72), pp 339–349. http:// om.ciheam.org/om/pdf/b72/b72.pdf Anthopoulou T, Nikolaidou S, Partalidou M, Petrou M (2018) The emergence of municipal allotment gardens in Greece in Times of Crisis. Governance challenges for new urban gardening practices. In: Soulard CT et al (eds) Toward sustainable relations between agriculture and the city. Urban Agriculture, pp 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71037-2_11 Arampatzi A (2016) The spatiality of counter-austerity politics in Athens, Greece: emergent ‘urban solidarity spaces’. Urban Stud 54(9):1–16 Aubry D, Kebir L (2013) Shortening food supply chains: a means for maintaining agriculture close to urban areas? The case of the French metropolitan area of Paris. Food Policy 2013(41):85–93 Backes S, Gkiougki J, Kay S et al (2018) Democracy not for sale. The struggle for food sovereignty in the age of austerity in Greece. Transnational Institute, FIAN International and Agroecopolis, Amsterdam/Heidelberg/Athens/Thessaloniki Bayourouki G, Kosmas E (2018) Community forms of alternative agriculture: The example of the group of Community Supported Agriculture in Heraklion. In: Zaimakis G (ed) Ερευνητικές Διαδρομές στις Κοινωνικές Επιστήμες. Digital Press of the University of Crete, pp 247–264

9  Solidarity and Justice in Local Food Systems: The Transformative Potential…

183

Bottiglieri M, Pettenati G, Toldo A (2016) Toward the Turin food policy good practices and visions. Milano, FrancoAngeli. Available via http://wwwcomunetorinoit/cooperazioneinternazionale/ notizie/pdf/libro/Toward_The_Turin_Food_Policy_bookpdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2018 Cadieux KV, Slocum R (2015) What does it mean to do food justice? J Polit Ecol 22:2–26 Claeys P (2015) Human rights and the food sovereignty movement: reclaiming control. Routledge, New York ECLAC-FAO-IICA (2015) Short food supply chain as an alternative for promoting family agriculture. http://repositorio.iica.int/bitstream/11324/6041/2/BVE17099252i.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2018 Folke C, Carpenter S, Elmqvist T et al (2002) Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. J Hum Environ 31(5):437–440 Galli F, Brunori G (eds) (2013) Short food supply chains as drivers of sustainable development. Evidence document, Document developed in the framework of the FP7 project FOODLINKS (GA No. 265287). Laboratorio di studi rurali Sismondi. ISBN 978-88-90896-01-9 Goodman D (2009) Place and space in alternative food networks: connecting production and consumption. Environment, politics and development working paper series Gotlieb R, Joshi A (2013) Food justice. The MIT Press Hellenic Statistical Authority (2018) Risk of poverty 2017 – survey on income and living conditions (Income reference period 2016). Press release 22/6/2018,. Available via http://www.statistics.gr/documents/20181/1ee23df8-71df-4317-b173-e791d6a15922. Accessed 12 Sept 2018 Henley J (2015) Greece’s solidarity movement: ‘it’s a whole new model  – and it’s working’. Newspaper article. Available via ‘Guardian’. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/23/ greece-solidarity-movement-cooperatives-syriza. Accessed 10 Sept 2018 Hillenkamp I, Lapeyre F, Lemaitre A (2013) Solidarity economy as part of popular security enhancing practices a Neo-Polanyian conceptual framework. Paper presented at the UNRISD Conference, 6–8 May 2013, Geneva, Switzerland International Network for CSA. https://urgenci.net/greece/. Accessed 18 Mar 2018 Kavoulakos K, Gritzas G (2015) Κινήματα και Εναλλακτικοί Χώροι στην Ελλάδα της Κρίσης: Μία νέα Κοινωνία Πολιτών. In: Demertzis N, Georgarakis N (eds) To Πολιτικό Πορτραίτο της Ελλάδας: Κρίση και Αποδόμηση του Πολιτικού. Gutenberg, Athens, pp 337–355 Kebir L, Torre A (2013) Geographical proximity and new short supply food chains. In: Lazzertti L (ed) Creative industries and innovation in Europe. Concepts, measures and comparative case studies. Routledge, New York Law 4019/2011 Social Economy and Social Entrepreneurship and other provisions (Greece) Law 4320/2015 Arrangements for immediate measures to deal with the humanitarian crisis, the organization of the Government and governmental bodies and other provisions (Greece) Law 4430/2016 Social and Solidarity Economy and development of its agencies and other provisions (Greece) Law 4492/2017 Trade of fresh and fragile agricultural products and other provisions (Greece) Law 4497/2017 on Operation of outdoor commercial activities (Greece) Leloup H (2016) Proximity agriculture in Lima: is a fairer production system emerging for producers and consumers? Food justice and agriculture (9). Available at Spatial justice. http:// www.jssj.org/article/lagriculture-de-proximite-a-lima-vers-un-systeme-producti1. Accessed 11 Sept 2018 Mayer M (2005) Combating social exclusion with ‘activating’ policies. Urban Reinventors 9(3):1–36 Morgan K (2015) Nourishing the city: the rise of the urban food question in the Global North. Urban Stud 52(8):1379–1394 Nikolaidou S (2017) Urban social initiatives for ‘food justice’: new forms of solidarity networks and social interaction in Greece. Postdoctoral Research. Available at Research Centre for the Humanities. https://www.rchumanities.gr/en/sofia-nikolaidou/. Accessed 18 Oct 2018

184

S. Nikolaidou

Nikolaidou S (2018) Metropolitan initiatives for 'food justice': rural-urban solidarity in Greece. In: Baron N, Romero J (eds) Cultura territorial e innovacion social, PUV Universitat de Valencia, Estudios y documentos, vol 25, pp 409–426 Nikolaidou S, Kolokouris O (2016) Transition movements in Greece: an alternative green solution to the crisis? Paper presented at the international conference on urban autonomy and the Collective City, Onassis Stegi, Athens, Greece, 1–2 July 2016 Nikolaidou S, Kolokouris O, Anthopoulou Th (2017) Environmental protection and hidden rurality in the peri-urban area of Athens: conflicts, cooperation and civic agro-ecological dynamics. Paper presented at the 54th Colloquium of the ASRDLF and15th conference of the ERSA Greek section, Panteion University Athens, Greece, 5–7 July 2017 Ostrom MR (2008) Community supported agriculture as an agent of change. Is it working? In: Hinrichs CC, Lyson TA (eds) Remaking the north American food system strategies for sustainability. University of Nebraska Press, pp 99–120 Papadaki M, Kalogeraki S (2018) Exploring social and solidarity economy (SSE) during the Greek economic crisis. Open J Sociopolitical Sci 11(1):38–69 Partalidou M (2015) Food miles and future scenario for local food systems: an exploratory study in Greece. Outlook Agric 44(2):151–157 Pautz H, Kominou M (2013) Reacting to ‘austerity politics’: the tactic of collective expropriation in Greece. Soc Mov Stud 12(1):103–110 Petropoulou Ε (2016) The role of short food supply chains in Greece  – what opportunities for sustainable, just and democratic food systems at Times of Crisis? Soc Anthropol 4(5):337–346 Petrou M (2015) ‘Let’s spend together’. The ‘No Middlemen’ citizen movement in the city. In: Maloutas T, Spirellis S (eds) Athens social atlas. Electronic collection of texts and visual material Preiss P, Charão-Marques F, Wiskerke J (2017) Fostering sustainable urban-rural linkages through local food supply: a transnational analysis of collaborative food alliances. Sustainability 9(7):1155. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071155 Rakopoulos T (2014) Resonance of solidarity: meanings of a local concept in anti-austerity Greece. J Mod Greek Stud 32(1):95–119 Rakopoulos T (2015) The solidarity economy in the Greek crisis: movementality, economic democracy and social reproduction. In: Economy for and against democracy. Berghahn, London/New York, pp 161–181 Raynolds L (2002) Consumer/producer links in fair trade coffee networks. Sociol Rural 42(4):404–424 Renting H, Marsden T, Bank J (2003) Understanding alternative food networks: exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environ Plan A 35:393–411 Renting H, Schermer M, Rossi A (2012) Building food democracy: exploring civic food networks and newly emerging forms of food citizenship. Int J Sociol Agric Food 19(3):289–307 RUAF (2015) City region food systems. Urban Agriculture Magazine, May 2015. http://www. foodmetres.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/RUAF-UAM29.pdf. Accessed 28 Mar 2018 Saliba A (2013) Greece: what the potato movement did next. New Internationalist Magazine, 1 January 2013. https://newint.org/features/2013/01/01/greece-potato-movement. Accessed 19 May 2018 Silici L (2014) Agroecology what it is and what it has to offer. Food and agriculture. IIED issue paper. IIED, London. Available at https://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/14629IIED.pdf Starr A (2010) Local food: a social movement? Cultural studies. Crit Methodol 10(6):479–490 Torre A (2014) L’agriculture de proximité face aux enjeux fonciers. Quelques réflexions à partir du cas francilien. Espaces et sociétés 2014/3(158):31–38 URBACT (2012) Sustainable food in urban communities developing low-carbon and resource-­ efficient urban food systems. European program. Available at http://urbact.eu/sites/default/ files/sustainable_food_baseline-study.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2018 Wekerle GR (2004) Food justice movements. Policy, planning, and networks. J Plan Educ Res 23(4):378–386

9  Solidarity and Justice in Local Food Systems: The Transformative Potential…

185

Xarli D (2017) Alternative food distribution networks in the context of solidarity economy and urban resilience. The case of the cooperative without intermediaries in Galatsi, Master thesis, Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, Department of Social Policy, Athens Sofia Nikolaidou  has a PhD in urban and regional planning and is adjunct lecturer at the Hellenic Open University as well as at the Department of Spatial Planning and Development of Aristotle University in Thessaloniki. Her main teaching topics cover rural development policies, social and solidarity economy and alternative forms of spatial planning. Her more recent research interests are related to food sovereignty movements, Alternative Food Networks, agri-food policies and green space governance.

Chapter 10

Villages at the State/Society Interface During the Crisis: Toward New Territorial Boundaries in Metropolitan Municipalities Fatma Nil Döner

10.1  Introduction Neoliberal transformation in Turkey began to shape the socioeconomic and political structure of the country in the 1980s. However, the intensification of reforms can be detected in the 2000s. Neoliberal governance, which is the prominent mentality of the era of the reforms, was promoted by the single party government with a centralist method on the contrary to its “decentralization” discourse (Zengin 2018). Since 1980, liberalization, openness, and privatization –the three pillars of the neoliberal economy– restrained state planning and programming (Abay et al. 2005; Suiçmez 2000). Restrictions on imports decreased, input subsidies (chemical and machinery) were eliminated, prices of crops and inputs were adjusted according to world prices, and regulatory public institutions for agriculture were privatized or made dysfunctional. The result for new ruralities (Kay 2008; Mooij et  al. 2000; Llambi 2000; Rauch 2014) was changing production patterns, labour and land use, new livelihood strategies, and market relations on the financial bottleneck due to crisis-prone economy of Turkey. With such implementations of neoliberal governance, rural spaces in Turkey have to face not only the challenges of transforming agriculture sector but also public administration reforms as the smallest units of local governance. Metropolitan municipality reforms on the basis of decentralization, which supports marketization, efficient use of resources, and collaboration between public-private sector and nongovernmental organizations, intend to design rural spaces as well. The Law No. 6360 issued in 2012 and implemented in 2014 expanded the boundaries of metropolitan municipality, abolished the legal identity of villages, and incorporated rural areas and the lands into urban areas as neighborhoods. Moreover, services will be provided in effective and productive way without any waste of resources. In fact, as F. N. Döner (*) Department of International Relations, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 F. N. Döner et al. (eds.), Crisis and Post-Crisis in Rural Territories, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50581-3_10

187

188

F. N. Döner

this study unveils, this reform privileged urban over rural spaces and regulated the sites of rural as land reserves for urban expansion on the basis of ‘unified decentralization’. Since rural spaces are accepted as repository for increasing urban infrastructure, with the effect of the crisis, rural spaces have experienced stronger pressure from market forces in cooperation with the state. Before rural sites are irreversibly transformed and harmed by the notion of neoliberal governance, the responsibility of decision-making should be passed back to the local communities and networks of local actors including all stakeholders (Marsden 2016; Bock 2019). The development of such plans and visions cannot be achieved only through efficiency and maximum profitability. This study combines qualitative research methods and theoretical approaches in order to understand and interpret the ongoing neoliberal transformation on the legal status of villages and its possible effects on rural dwellers based on longitudinal research in Karacabey (Bursa, Turkey). It also necessitates a comprehensive analysis of reconstructed political, social, and economic processes in the neoliberal crisis era concerning the villages and the state. The combination of fieldwork, in-depth interviews, and the evaluation of statistical data on socio-economic indicators related to rural sites embodies the research techniques of this study. In addition, the archives of the local newspaper Meltem and Yörem provided valuable information about the real agenda on the ground. Especially, in-depth interviews conducted with the headman of the village and rural dwellers enabled us to identify the socioeconomic and political dimensions of legal change in the status of villages and the use of land considering new regulations by state related to rural governance in the time of the crisis. To explore some interrelations between rural spaces, local administration reforms, and the crisis in Turkey, this chapter is presented in four parts. The first part will outline the neoliberal transformation process and crisis-prone economy of Turkey, with special emphasis on changing ruralities since 1980s. The second part analyzes the concept of neoliberal governance and the regulation of urban and rural spaces through municipality reforms in the crisis times. The changes that the Law No. 6360 brought to local administration system in Turkey and the metropolitan vision for the rural spaces in the crisis will be examined in the third part. Finally, the impacts of the Law No. 6360 will be briefly discussed in regard to different aspects, with special emphasis on land policies and municipal services.

10.2  Neoliberal Transformation of Agriculture in Turkey Applying austerity programs is one of the few options open to countries facing economic and financial crisis. Economic policy reforms based on the conditionality principle for incoming loans have been launched by many economies struggling to overcome the economic instability arising from commodity price shocks, domestic

10  Villages at the State/Society Interface During the Crisis: Toward New Territorial…

189

economic mismanagement, and diminishing access to international capital flows (Koyuncu and Şenses 2004). Such policies have had profound effects on the operation and performance of especially public enterprises and state subsidized sectors. Most adjustment or austerity programs alter production incentives, investment levels, public sector outlays, management of public sector institutions, and need for new technologies (Tabor 1995). International agencies have been demanding new structural reforms based on the neoliberalization of Turkey, as with other developing countries since the 1980s. The integration of Turkish agriculture into the market-led economy started with the decisions accepted on January 24th, 1980. The IMF and the World Bank played the leading role inasmuch as their global policies designed for neoliberal transformation and required structural adjustment (Alpago 2002; Altıok 2002). The transition from import-substitution to market-led economy was declared by the January 24th decisions. Export-oriented policies and structural adjustment, which were the conditions of lending to Turkey, altered the regulatory role of the state in Turkish agriculture. Until then the state could supervise, control, and organize agricultural production for the benefit of small and medium-size producers (Kendir 2002). However, beginning in 1980 liberalization, openness, and privatization, the three pillars of the neoliberal economy, disallowed state planning and programming (Abay et al. 2005; Suiçmez 2000). Restrictions on imports were decreased, input subsidies (chemical and machinery) were eliminated, prices of crops and inputs were adjusted according to world prices, and regulatory public institutions for agriculture were privatized or made dysfunctional. Step by step, agricultural public enterprises, public banks, and cooperatives were privatized or projected to be privatized. The legal barrier for the monopoly of TEKEL (State Monopoly of Alcohol and Tobacco Products) and ÇAYKUR (General Directorate of Tea Enterprises) were removed. In 2002, the Tobacco Act, which permitted cigarette and tobacco imports, local production of foreign brands, and abandoned support purchases and intervention in prices let the conditions of sales and purchases be directed by market (İslamoğlu 2008; Aydın 2005). Moreover, the Sugar Act in 2001 and the Acts of Hazelnut in 2001 and 2009 expedited the commercialization and neoliberalization of the agricultural sector (Alexander 2002). Especially, the last two decades have represented a definite breakdown for farmers. The letters of intent submitted to the IMF and the World Bank between 1999 and 2000 contain transforming agricultural policies (Oyan 2001b, 2002; Olhan 2006; Yavuz 2005). In 2001, the $600 million ARIP (Agricultural Reform Implementation Project) agreement was authorized by the World Bank. The ARIP aimed at eliminating all subsidies, implementing the direct income support system, reorganizing and privatizing administrative structures and cooperatives, and providing support for the adoption of alternative crops (Kendir 2003; Yılmaz et al. 2006; Doğan 2002). The result is the opening of the Turkish agricultural market to multinational companies and global agents, or in other words, to the penetration of capital into the sector (Oyan 2009). In consequence, trade liberalization that allows subsidized imported goods to capture the inner market and prices free from government regulation have

190

F. N. Döner

eventuated in the reconfiguration of Turkish agriculture since the beginning of the 1980s and accelerated in the late 1990s (Günaydın 2009). The austerity measures and structural adjustment programs that insist on subsidy and credit restrictions, limiting government expenditures, and decreasing wages bring about poverty and decline in the living standards of the rural and urban poor (Demirer 2004). While better-off farmers are reaping the benefits of having access to land, technology, and regional political networks, small producers are facing increasing indebtedness and are alienated from the means of production such as land and agricultural equipment (Gürkan 2008; Gürbüz 2001). Household survival strategies such as non-farm and off-farm employment, diversification, and migration create a space for maneuvering for the existence of small producers (Özturk et al. 2018). Nevertheless, increasing labor input, especially by women and children, overindebtedness, and the changing composition of limited consumption deepen the effects of restructuring on rural households (Aydın 2001, 2002). The post-1980 period, which is identified as a rupture from earlier agricultural policies, threatens the existing survival strategies of small producers, aggravates social differentiation, and precipitates urban migration under the auspices of the international financial institutions (Oyan 2001a). In addition, transformation in rural societies based on market-led economy also forms a space for confrontation and maneuvering for the farmers. Clearly, 1980s and 1990s were the decades of political and economic instability in Turkey. Turkey faced three most destructive crises in 1994, November 2000 and February 2001. The recent ones are called twin crises1 and the coalition government had to draw loans from the IMF and the World Bank, which brought back neoliberal orthodoxy and austerity programs to Turkey. As it was mentioned above, rescue packages affected rural policies through budget constraints, trade liberalization, and privatization as well. Although Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi-AKP), that won the first general elections after the twin economic crises, continued neoliberal transformation and adjustment, neoliberal assault on farmers is referred to previous governments (Gürel et al. 2019). Considering that especially in the first years of governance the AKP implemented social policies including rural poor to eliminate effects of this transformation, despite their limits these policies not only prevented social grievances but also worked for the elections and AKP raised support from rural areas. Moreover, the complementary components of the post-2001 policy framework especially related to banking sector reforms and new regulatory institutions resulted in high capital inflows and created an opportunity for AKP to ease austerity processes (Marois and Güngen 2019). Nevertheless, underlying fragility of the economy due to dependent financialization in the last two decades cannot be cured. After the 2008 global financial crisis rapid outflows from Turkey made the economy highly vulnerable again. Finally, 2018–2019 economic crisis, actually started with currency crisis, has caused an economic stagnation nowadays (Akcay and Güngen 2019). 1  Twin crises refer to the simultaneous collapse of the banking system and currency in a country. The term was introduced by Kaminsky and Reinhart (1999) after several crises occurred around the world in the late 1990s.

10  Villages at the State/Society Interface During the Crisis: Toward New Territorial…

191

10.3  The Notion of Neoliberal Governance The neoliberalization of Turkey refers to the influence of many international and domestic factors in the political and socio-economic reconfiguration of the country over the past four decades. These include economic crises, structural adjustment programs, and austerity policies that promote openness in trade and finance, privatization of state enterprises and institutions, and major reductions in the state budget. More specifically, as it was mentioned in the previous section, the country’s deregulation of agricultural production and trade and reorganization of land control and services resulted in transformation of employment, livelihood strategies, and market relations introducing new dynamics of social differentiation. One important dimension of this process of transformation is neoliberal governmentality, “which refers various forms of neoliberal rationality mobilized by and through the state”, particularly evident in spatial governance that is potentially challenging existing central territorial arrangements (Haughton et al. 2013:220; Pierre 2000; Metzger and Schmitt 2012). The reorganization and governance of politicojuridical spaces are not exempt from particular state strategies and politics. Approached from the perspective of neoliberal forms of governance, the state’s regulatory restructuring on the spaces should be driven by the dynamics of development and high growth, efficiency, and profitability. According to Haughton, Allmendinger, and Oosterlynck (2013), an essential feature of neoliberalization is its evolutionary and resilience capacity that makes it compatible to various localities, institutional structures, and societies. Its dominance derives from its adaptability to changing conditions and the systematic inclusion of different objects including new spaces. Escobar (1995:44) states that sociotechnical arrangements through the dynamics of neoliberal idea of development include new objects under its domain continuously but omitting one important point: people. Development was –and continues to be for the most part- a top-down, ethnocentric, and technocratic approach, which treated people and cultures as abstract concepts, statistical figures to be moved up and down in the charts of “progress.” Development was conceived not as a cultural process …but instead as a system of more or less universally applicable technical interventions intended to deliver some “badly needed” goods to a “target” population.

Since these polices are not the outcome of local contingency, it is necessary to unpack sociotechnical interventions of neoliberal governmentality and see how this process actually works. Based on the writings of Foucault, Lemke (2007) asserts that symbolic techniques, programs, and calculations enable authorities to guide and reshape space, resources, and institutions as well as people to achieve specific objectives. Including formal and informal practices, governmentality creates political rationalities and technologies guarantee that the notion of social citizen attached to mobilization is superseded by individual atomic citizen and involves a new relation of the state, the market, and society.

192

F. N. Döner

In addition, space combining socio-natural assets and practices in itself, becomes an agent of neoliberal governmentality. Global and local networks in cooperation with the state institutions reconfigure the space in terms of productive processes and consumption processes. Woods (2007) emphasizing the relational understanding of the space argues that the power of transformation relies not only on subordination or domination but also on interaction, negotiation and configuration of many actors. In a similar vein, Tonts and Horsley (2019) highlight that reconstitution of spaces under the spatial and temporal logics of neoliberalism encourages hybridization; it is dynamic, non-linear and creating new intricacies to uneven processes of development. Although neoliberalism combines a series of well-known policies that promote competition, openness, and the role of the free market prior to the state, as a political project commodification, marketization, and institutional arrangements through neoliberalism take into account specific interactions and particularities such as political regimes, cultural practices, social norms, and even religion to penetrate more into various spaces. Thinking that rural spaces provide a range of multi-­ functional services from a variety of land based businesses across the food, forestry, and tourism sectors; tailored place-based strategies are necessary to maximize comparative advantages, efficiency, and integration into global markets. According to Ward and Brown (2009), the valorization of local assets and resources, creation of new business sectors, improving public-private partnerships, and encouraging diversity of stakeholders across all levels of government according to local characteristics are centered in neoliberal policies for the regulation of rural space and commodities. Within this market-oriented spatial development framework, rural spaces also play their role as reserves for urban growth. In addition to their role as suppliers of rural goods and services for the urban centers, including raw materials to industry; rural areas’ exclusive resources have inclined to serve more and more to urban spaces for non-agricultural use. There has been a persistent trend that farmland is being irreversibly transferred into urban space (Rogge et al. 2016). Overpopulation and overconsumption in the cities force authorities for the efficient use of rural land. Agribusiness and mining activities, environmental and energy policies such as carbon markets, biomass production, and the promotion of renewable energy sources, construction and infrastructure projects from settlement to industrial zones, and tourism and leisure programs have increased pressure and competition for rural land (Primdahl 2014; Woods 2009, 2019). Ultimately, non-agricultural use of agricultural land is to a large extend growing and this expansion embodies both threats and opportunities for rural dwellers concomitantly. Alongside with these trends, we should also be aware of the effects of the crisis on the use of rural land such as commodification, dispossession, and increasing informal relations. Rents on agricultural lands, accumulation by dispossession, and accumulation regimes can only be achieved by reorganization of rural inhabitants’ spaces of reproduction (Harvey 2005; Levien 2013; Giraldo 2019). Notably during the crisis, agricultural land attracts high levels of investment as rural areas are accepted as safe-zones for large enterprises that can create higher financial returns

10  Villages at the State/Society Interface During the Crisis: Toward New Territorial…

193

compare to stock market and currency market. This encourages investment from a wider group of sectors away from rural dwellers’ accession. On the one hand, large enterprises are searching for secure investment in the time of the crisis. On the other hand, farmers who are in financial bottleneck need to sell their land voluntarily or involuntarily to cover their debts and living expenses as a last resort. Despite the fact that transactions meet supply and demand, the path of the crisis leads to highly concentrated and exclusive land market both in ownership and use. Moreover, massive influence of private interests in rural land results in multitude of formal and informal practices between the landowner, the capital-owner, and the public authorities (Koch 2015). Increasing pressure on land and on other natural resources from urban demand in the crisis times is unavoidable fact and rural areas close to metropolitan spaces face the strongest challenges and create new interfaces with the urban areas (Buciega et al. 2009). In the abundant literature on in-between or hybrid spaces, the concepts such as rurban spaces, soft spaces (Haughton et al. 2013), plannings last frontier (Gallent et al. 2006), rural-urban fringe (Hoggart 2005; Scott et al. 2013), transitional spaces (Weaver and Lawton 2001) refer to rural-urban interactions and blending rural-urban relations. Despite the differences in conceptualization, the representation of the space in these studies has some common characteristics. First, the proximity to cities especially metropolitan areas paves the way for the immense and quite land occupancy. Second, these rural sites emerge as a place of multifunctionality with complex flows of resources, economic activity, labour, and construction. Third, uncertainties highlight the functioning of hybrid and networked spaces. These peri-urban localities may attract investment as well as loose common lands and natural resources; public services may be improved as well as cut; agriculture production may increase as well as rural dwellers quit agricultural production. Ultimately, the complexity of the spatial and territorial changes during the crisis brings about shifts in rural policymaking, agenda-setting processes and governance as well. On the one hand, the administrative frontiers of the urban have expanded and governance tools and actors are privileging urban over ruralities. On the other hand, neoliberal idea of the shift from government to governance is presented as devolution of power to local actors. This neoliberal understanding of governance, based on the notion of minimum state, is enacted through non-governmental organizations, civil society, and new initiatives of public-private partnerships (Noguera and Freshwater 2016; Cheshire 2016). During 1990s, there was a vibrant literature on the concept of governance in parallel to the global rise of neoliberal policies (Jessop 1997; Stoker 1998; Jones and MacLeod 1999). Concomitantly, institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank, and the EU supported governance models that offered bottom-up development programs and empowerment of local people. Nevertheless, the extent to which governance models invigorate democratic rule and community initiatives in development remained contested. Bock (2019) indicates that the constraints in terms of participation, legitimacy, and effectiveness and the danger of rising local elites’ control over community pose threats to the validity of the concept.

194

F. N. Döner

Despite the debates on the concept, the austerity policies following the global financial crisis in 2008 strengthened the notion of public policy on the basis of governance. The austerity policies have compelled the state to limit expenses and withdraw from public services provision, which has had the most profound impacts on rural areas. These policies have been promoted as if the governance is an opportunity for local people to contribute policy-making procedures through the horizontal distribution of power. In a way, it seems to be an adequate planning and management tool to maximize citizen engagement, policy relevancy, and effectiveness in the lack of public funds. Such a development would be achieved with more inclusive policies however this has not been an initial concern of the governance approach. Research demonstrates that in the lack of state-led public services, the market forces fill the gap. In other words, the state transfers responsibility to design and organize delivery of the services to the market institutions. Since the market is functioning on the basis of cost and benefit, it centers around new complexities such as inequality and exclusion. Neoliberal thinking shifts the state-society relations into company-customer relations. In this line of thinking, citizens are like clients who are receiving public services through private companies. The governance facilitates penetration of markets and neoliberal way of thinking not only into service provision but also into management of any resource including water, land, and mines etc.… More fundamentally, although the state is eased out as public service provider to the citizens, it is actively involved in assisting the market forces to use local resources for interest and rent (Döner 2016). It is important to acknowledge that during crisis the risks such as declining local economic activity and agricultural production, job losses, depopulation, outmigration, and in some cases new residency fold vulnerability of rural spaces. However, the state drives forward market-based tools to shape contemporary rural spaces, which were actually hit by uneven policies of neoliberalism.

10.4  What Does Municipal Law No. 6360 Bring? The concept and practice of governance is challenging the idea of local government also in rural areas through reorganizing their agendas, priorities, policy-making institutions, services, and distribution of resources. Associated with the dominance of neoliberalism and triggered by the crisis, the governance emplaces localism, decentralization, and capacity building as the main indicators of effective local administration including rural areas. With few exceptions from Finland to China, many national governments have implemented local government reforms for the efficiency of the public administration with minimum use of central budget and central resources (Douglas 2016). Although these reforms have never been called rural administrative reforms, legislative regulatory amendments have exceedingly affected the power and politics of rural local government and rural development.

10  Villages at the State/Society Interface During the Crisis: Toward New Territorial…

195

In a similar vein, despite the fact that Turkey is a unitary state with powerful state level authorities, it has also revised local government policies.2 Since the beginning of the neoliberal transformation of Turkey in 1980s, Turkey has implemented local administration reforms. Nevertheless, the reform process has gained momentum especially in the last decade. Considering neoliberal transformation, the recurring crises, and financial bottleneck the aim of the revisions is to use resources efficiently, attract the national and international investment to economically major areas, and provide effective services (Zengin 2014, 2018). In this process, the metropolitan municipality reforms gain prominence. Pointedly, according to Law No. 6360 presented to the parliament in 2012 and implemented in the first local elections dated March 30, 2014; borders of metropolitan municipalities were expanded; smaller province and county municipalities that have less than 5000 population were closed and villages within the expanded boundaries of metropolitan municipality turned into neighborhoods; and the number of metropolitan municipalities increased but the total number of municipalities decreased in Turkey (Durak 2015) (Figs. 10.1 and 10.2). As shown above in the figures, with the Law No. 6360 two-tier system in Law No. 5216 collapsed and the boundaries of the metropolitan municipality and provincial administration boundaries overlapped. District municipalities, counties, and rural areas were incorporated into the metropolitan boundaries and combined

Fig. 10.1  The administrative boundaries in the Law No. 5216. (Source: Çelikyay 2014)

2  Turkey does not acquire regional level administrative institutions. The local administration of Turkey, which is based on city level, has officially three-tier system: special provincial administration, municipalities, and neighbourhoods or villages. See more information at https://www.tbb. gov.tr/en/local-authorities/types-of-local-governments/ (Accessed 8 Dec 2019).

196

F. N. Döner

Fig. 10.2  The changing administrative boundaries in the Law No. 6360. (Source: Çelikyay 2014)

Fig. 10.3  Metropolitan municipalities in Turkey. (Source: Çelikyay 2014)

with the administrative provinces. Villages lost their status and legal personality and turned into neighborhoods. In other words, rural areas were legally transformed into urban areas. With the Law No. 6360, 14 new metropolitan municipalities were established. The number of metropolitan municipalities rose to 30 of total 81 cities in Turkey (Fig. 10.3).

10  Villages at the State/Society Interface During the Crisis: Toward New Territorial…

197

According to the local administration system of Turkey, there are two governors of the city, one appointed and one elected. On the one hand, the mayor of the provincial administration is appointed by the state, by the central government. On the other hand, the governor of the metropolitan municipality is elected by the city dwellers. Recently, the mayor and the governor of the city are ruling on the same administrative area, which was previously different. Moreover, the Law No. 6360 removed the special provincial administrative units under the control of appointed city mayor and established new Investment Monitoring and Coordination Directorates dependent to elected metropolitan municipality governor. All investments and services of public institutions will be decided by Investment Monitoring and Coordination Directorates. The main revisions on local administration apparently related to rural spaces are given below: –– Public transport services will be carried out by the metropolitan municipality with in the administrative boundaries of the city. –– The construction, maintenance, cleaning, and repairing of the roads that connect the city center to the villages (new neighbourhoods) will be accomplished by the metropolitan municipality. –– Water sewerage services within the boundaries of the metropolitan municipalities will be carried out by the Water and Sewage Administration under metropolitan municipality. –– Since villages are turned into neighborhoods, any economic activity in the neighborhood such as opening a shop, restaurant, and grocery should be licensed by the metropolitan municipality. –– Architectural projects and all kind of renovations in the buildings in the neighborhoods should be approved by the metropolitan municipality. –– New taxes, fees, and contributions such as property taxes, waste disposal costs, fees for new construction are introduced starting in 2017 from which rural dwellers were previously exempt. –– All common goods including land meadows and coastal fronts, all kind of equipment and vehicles in the former villages will be transferred to the metropolitan municipality. –– Rural development plans (including agriculture and animal husbandry) in accordance with the national development plans will be designed and implemented by the metropolitan municipalities.

10.5  Discussion: Results and Impacts of the Law No. 6360 Crucial for the analyses of neoliberal governance and the crisis in Turkey is the evaluation of the impacts of the metropolitan municipality reforms on rural areas. The priority of metropolitan area over rural space reflects the idea that big cities are the hub of development, innovation, and competition; attract global and national investment; and offer many opportunities for commercial relations. According to

198

F. N. Döner

Table 10.1  Distribution of population of cities, towns, villages in terms of years in Turkey

Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Cities and towns Total Total % (million) 76.3 56.2 76.8 57.3 77.3 58.4 91.3 70.0 91.8 71.3 92.1 72.5 92.3 73.7 92.5 74.8 92.3 75.7

Male (million) 28.3 28.9 29.3 35.1 35.8 36.4 36.9 37.5 37.9

Female (million) 27.9 28.5 29.1 34.9 35.5 36.1 36.7 37.3 37.8

Districts and villages Total Total Male % (million) (million) 23.7 17.5 8.7 23.2 17.3 8.7 22.7 17.2 8.6 8.7 6.6 3.3 8.2 6.4 3.2 7.9 6.2 3.1 7.7 6.1 3.1 7.5 6.0 3.0 7.7 6.3 3.2

Female (million) 8.8 8.7 8.6 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1

Source: TurkStat 2019/Population statistics/Population of Province/District Centers and Towns/ Villages by Years and Sex, Census of Population – ABPRS http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/UstMenu. do?metod=temelist (Accessed 8 Dec 2019)

the developmental policies of the state, metropolitan areas are accepted as the motors of economy that can reverse rural backwardness and the destructive effects of the crisis on economic indicators in Turkey (Onbirinci Kalkınma Planı 2019). To establish viable and smart cities is one of the five main pillars of the 11. Development Program for 2019–2023. The modernist motto of ‘the less rural population, the more developed is the country’ can be detected in the official development program and in the metropolitan municipality reform as well. The Law No. 6360 dramatically changed rural-urban population ratio in statistics as if showing that city extension is a natural condition of growth and development. The table below shows the dramatic change after the Law No. 6360 issued in 2012 (Table 10.1). Moreover, the number of villages declined 47% with the adoption of the law. In 2012 the number of villages in Turkey was 34,434, however in 2013 it was 18,214 (Kızılaslan et al. 2016: 81). Even if it is only on statistics, these reform attempts prove that in the state level promotion of urbanism leads the development programs and the rural is accepted as hinterland (Andersson et  al. 2016). The governor of Karacabey District Municipality, Ali Özkan’s remark, “What’s in the city center will be in the countryside” also emphasizes that the only model for rural development is the city (Belediye’den tadilat açılışları, March 16, 2017, Yörem Newspaper). Correspondingly, Wilczak (2017:110) points out the challenges in the design of rural communities in Chengdu, China after an earthquake and defines city-based programing as “cloning” city neighborhoods in the organization the rural spaces. In addition to rural-urban population changes in statistics and urban biased development programs, the Law No. 6360 also brings about the contestation of power in the local territorial governance. As first tier provincial, county, and district municipalities were incorporated into metropolitan municipalities, the representation and participation of rural communities are subordinated to city centers. However, sub-municipal levels are so important for the grassroot involvement, the maintenance of local democracy, and providing local scale municipal services.

10  Villages at the State/Society Interface During the Crisis: Toward New Territorial…

199

Similar to other local services, implementation of development plans should be in principle developed by the local units. In this context, the priority and the voice of local people cannot be overlooked (Keleş 2016). Above all, the change in the law should be discussed by the local people as presented in Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, signed by Turkish Republic: “Changes in local authority boundaries shall not be made without prior consultation of the local communities concerned, possibly by means of a referendum where this is permitted by statute.” (Council of Europe 1985). In practice, this process was top-down and the reform implemented without any negotiation or consultation with administrative units. In this respect, this method is contrary to the aim of the reform, which intends to strengthen local democracy and decentralization in accordance with the neoliberal governance. Within the context of the local governance reform, the practice is not compatible with the rhetoric. Despite the fact that this law intended to regulate municipal governance on the basis of decentralization, the implications can be considered as ‘unified decentralization’. On the one hand, at the state level, the city becomes more powerful and local administration units become more responsible in terms of services and structure on the basis of financial autonomy. Therefore, there are considerable amount of criticisms about decentralization because the law instill the fear of federalism especially among right-wing parties. However, on the other hand, at the city level metropolitan municipalities are equipped with power unified within its borders due to the fact that in many settlements local administration units and most of the villages were abolished. Along with the criticisms above, there is a common view that the law brought in electoral advantages to the ruling party because the expansion of the boundaries of metropolitan municipality also means the expansion of the electoral district including rural areas (Alkan 2015; Gürel et al. 2019). Considering that rural votes tend to support conservative parties in Turkey, Aygül (2016) reveals how the AKP took the advantage of the revisions in 2014 local elections. The AKP won 18 out of 30 metropolitan municipality in the elections which, according to the modeling of Aygül (2016), would not be possible without the regulations in the local administration law. In fact, metropolitan municipalities, become regional scale urban governments. In other words in terms of duty, authority, and responsibility metropolitan municipalities exceptionally have the primary say. Metropolitan municipalities are held responsible for rural services. Nevertheless, if the surface area and population density are considered, the capacity of metropolitan municipalities to provide sufficient services in all neighbourhoods and districts is also contested. According to the law, even the organization of cemetery zones and burial services are conducted by the metropolitan municipality. Therefore, how can it manage to reach every corner of the city? The village master (muhtar) emphasizes the significance of personal relations to receive services from metropolitan municipality. When he was asked how the new neighbourhood situation of the village has impacted on services, he replied “it is good for our village but others are becoming worse. I am retired from the municipality; my friends are still holding offices there. Look, today is Saturday but seven graders of the municipality are operating here, in the village. I’m pleased with

200

F. N. Döner

the municipality services but this explanation may misguide you.” (Harmanli village, May 13, 2017). Legally and administratively, district municipality is under the authority of metropolitan municipality. This situation would cause different outcomes in practice based on the differences of political parties that hold these two institutions. For instance, what will happen if district municipality is on the opposition party and the metropolitan municipality is on governing party? Lack of assistance by the metropolitan municipality in producing and providing services is highly possible. Even worse, supply of services can be accepted as a reward for ruling party supporters. The rational behind the new law is the effort to make metropolitan municipality to look like a professional company, which can compete for revenues especially during the crisis. Moreover, this radical restructuring mainly rapid urbanization, structural, social, and economic changes in service delivery has been strongly linked to the neoliberal concept of efficiency which can be seen as a remedy to ease from negative effects of the crisis on the service maintenance. Very often, municipalities own their own companies for various services from culture to transportation. Tarım A.S. (Agriculture Inc.) owned by Bursa Metropolitan Municipality is responsible for rural development policies including agriculture and animal husbandry. In the crisis environment, the companies of the municipalities serve for the state’s intention to reduce public services’ expenses seen as a burden on the budget. In addition to services given by companies, projectification has become a new tool to achieve financial autonomy from the state in the crisis (Kuokkanen 2016). Projects are essential elements of new public administration based on the collaboration of multi-­ level actors from public and private sector and the civil society. Here, it is significant to note that from the point view of accountability and transparency projectification can create fuzzy boundaries if informal relations lead the process. Significant increases in services and responsibilities also bring significant increase in budget of the metropolitan municipalities in the city based centralized management as shown below (Table 10.2). Here, while the share of metropolitan municipalities in the budget is increasing and the share of local units is decreasing. The expansion of city administration affects representation and participation of local administration units in political decisions and their share in the general budget revenues as well. Regulations were expected to enforce local administration however tendency towards centralization

Table 10.2  General budget revenues collection sum of sharing ratio Metropolitan municipality Metropolitan District municipality Other municipality Special provincial administration

Law No. 5779 (2008) 5 2.5 2.85 1.15

Law No. 6360 (2012) 6 4.5 1.5 0.5

Other municipality: province municipality, county municipality, and borough municipality Source: Durak (2015)

10  Villages at the State/Society Interface During the Crisis: Toward New Territorial…

201

have increased through unity and coordination of duties by the metropolitan municipality. As the role of metropolitan municipality is growing in the public administration, Metropolitan governor has become a crucial actor. The reason for this relates to the fact that Metropolitan governor has evolved into a more powerful political figure with rising authority and funds. As it was mentioned before, the mayor of the special provincial units is appointed in Turkey. However, metropolitan municipality governor is elected. Now, with the Law No. 6360 they are governing same boundaries. Recently, the control of all investment and budget decisions, which were previously managed by the appointed mayor, is transferred to the metropolitan governor through newly established Investment Monitoring and Coordination Directorates. Alongside these trends, natural resources and commons in rural areas, more generally land; have acceleratingly evolved into the basis for commodification, marketization, and commercialization to recover crisis conditions (Hardin 2009; Ostrom 2015;  Ronningen and Flemsaeter 2016; Kan 2019). Through the Law No. 6360, properties belonging to the legal personality of the villages were transferred to metropolitan municipality. The master of the village explains the process in grief: 595 decares, almost 600 decares in total… These are sold by the Treasury. But we were renting these properties in the name of the village. Back in the days, these had been bought in the name of legal personality of the village by our ancestors. They are all gone with the new law. Houses, gardens, lodging for the mosque and for the school, and fountains in the streets etc… We even had the property deeds of the cemetery but we lost all. The title deeds were automatically transferred to the municipality by the land office. I literally have all the deeds in paper but they are not valid. (Harmanli village, May 13, 2017)

What emerged from these developments was gradual non-agricultural use of farmland. The conversion of rural land for marketable use can be achieved through voluntary and involuntary sales of land by the farmers and administrative regulations. Recently, Turkey has experienced both. In the crisis period farmers tend to sell their land to meet their debts and expenses. At the same time, with the regulations of the state as the Law No. 6360, rural land is being irreversibly converted into urban. Rural space becomes a source of spatial development of the city through the expansion of urban borders. As shown on the Table  10.3, between 2012 and 2018, 600,000 hectares land, almost 3% of total arable land, was taken out of production. The use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes such as industry zones, housing, mining, tourism, and transportation is remarkable in Turkey (Ministry of Development 2014; Mengi et al. 2017). Despite the Act for the Land Protection issued in 2005, the protection of valuable farmland is very limited. In fact, the vast majority of land consumed for urbanization is farmland. Land use changes and agriculture has been decoupled from the rural. Figure 10.4 shows the number of official applications for the nonagricultural use of farmland in dotted line and the magnitude of land officially accepted for non-­agricultural use in pillars. The effects of crises can be seen in 2002 and 2008 in the amount of land transferred to non-agricultural use. The dramatic rise in the number of applications after the Law No. 6360 issued in 2012

2012 Ha 15,463 4286 827 3201 23,777

Source: Turkstat

x1000 Sown Fallow Veg Fruit Total

% 65 18 3.5 13.5

2013 Ha 15,613 4148 808 3232 23,801

% 65.6 17.4 3.4 13.6

Table 10.3  The use of land in Turkey (2012–2018) 2014 Ha 15,782 4108 804 3243 23,937 % 65.9 17.2 3.4 13.5

2015 Ha 15,723 4114 808 3284 23,929 % 65.7 17.2 3.4 13.7

2016 Ha 15,575 3998 804 3329 23,706 % 66.4 16.9 3.4 14

2017 Ha 15,498 3697 798 3348 23,341

% 66.4 15.8 3.4 14.3

2018 Ha 15,421 3513 784 3462 23,180

% 66.5 15.2 3.4 15

202 F. N. Döner

10  Villages at the State/Society Interface During the Crisis: Toward New Territorial…

203

Fig. 10.4  Misuse of agricultural areas within the scope of soil conservation and land use Law No. 5403 (2001–2017). (Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, General Directorate of Agricultural Reform)

until 2016 can be detected from the figure.  Recently, number of applications is decreasing but the magnitude of land is relatively higher especially in 2016. At this point, informal use of land should also be considered. It is clear that the significant loss of agricultural land has created new governable spaces, which are incorporated into capital accumulation. Land-based accumulation, which is accepted safe for non-farm capital during crisis, has resulted in new types of risks and instability for rural places. The laws on local administration provide municipalities better tools to lead development and planning processes. However, private and public interests in planning have resulted in informal arrangements. Koch (2015:409) defines this dynamic transformation as “arranged urbanism” which reveals the relations between private actors and public authorities through formal and informal practices and the exertion of different kinds of power. Moreover, the role of the local elites gains prominence in this interaction (Fox 2007). Local elites situated around municipalities such as landowners, merchants, transport owners, agro-food company owners, and professionals intend to get benefit of their strategic location and sometimes their power in rural areas. The norms of land control and the practices of land use have destabilized and challenged by the crisis and state regulations. Nevertheless, the result is a dramatic rise in inequality and power asymmetries.

204

F. N. Döner

10.6  Conclusion For the majority of small farmers, neoliberal policies and endemic crisis continuously diminish the level of income, and farming on its own becomes incapable of providing sufficient livelihood for rural dwellers. The process of easing away from a strictly agrarian existence has resulted in changes in the main income sources, emerging new economic activities, and spatial relocation. Rural inhabitants in the village try to manage their subsistence and overhaul consumption patterns, land use, and environmental changes in order to surmount the vicissitudes of the crisis and agricultural reforms. It is clear that Turkey is incapable of rooting out unexpected outcomes of the crisis in rural areas such as changing production patterns, the concentration of land, rising overindebtedness, and migration. In addition to expanded commodification of land, the government issued a new law in November 2012 (the Law No.6360), which has changed the land control and the status of village in rural governance (Savaş-Yavuzçehre 2016; Kızılaslan et al. 2016; Çelik and Uçar 2016). Villages lost autonomous governance rights and became dependent on what the metropolitan municipality proposes and decides as new neighborhoods and reservoirs of urban development in the time of crisis. Considering recent changes in law and its impacts, it is clear that rural representation and governance reflect contested state-society relations and power struggles that cut across different levels of government. The most significant point is that sub-­ municipal levels including villages, which are the basis of local democracy, participation, and representation transfer their rights to higher municipal levels. Since metropolitan municipalities become ultimate decision makers, the policies tend to be biased toward the needs of the cities and local problems of outlying villages are omitted. As villages lost legal recognition, common goods from pastures and meadows to vehicles and equipment used by the villagers were transferred to metropolitan municipalities. From public transport services to water sewerage services, many additional services will be provided by the metropolitan municipalities in return for fees and new taxes. When the law first introduced, rural dwellers were expecting to receive high quality public services however the services have not been enhanced in 5  years despite the increase in fees and taxes. The use of common goods by the metropolitan municipality and the maintenance of the services through projects and private companies emerged out of the idea of maximum profitability and minimum state expenses during the crisis. However, there is higher possibility of increasing accountability problems related to common goods and municipal services because the allocation of services is widely accepted as part of efforts to reward supporters of the government and to isolate opposition parties. At this point, as the master of the village pointed out, individual networks become much more important to receive services from the metropolitan municipality.

10  Villages at the State/Society Interface During the Crisis: Toward New Territorial…

205

In addition, any type of architectural projects and rural development programs will be controlled and designed by metropolitan municipalities. Villages are disappearing literally and legally and rural people, whose livelihoods are intervened, production resources are limited, and land is grasped, are losing the right to govern their own communities. As an outcome of the crisis, rural dwellers have failed to keep access to local governance and new legal regulations have taken power away from them especially in land control. The shift in distribution and power structure is evident today, however rural societies should manage to make local autonomy and democracy one of their priority especially in crisis times (Marsden 2016; Bock 2019). There should be a growing awareness of the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the development of such plans and vision.

References Abay C, Olhan E, Uysal Y, Yavuz F, Türkekul B (2005) Türkiye’de tarım politikalarında değişim. Türkiye Ziraat Mühendisliği VI. Teknik Kongresi, Ankara, 3–7 Ocak 2005 Akcay Ü, Güngen AR (2019) The making of Turkey’s 2018–2019 economic crisis. IPE working papers 120/2019. Berlin School of Economics and Law, Institute for International Political Economy (IPE) Alexander C (2002) Personal states making connections between people and bureaucracy in Turkey. Oxford University Press, New York Alkan A (2015) New metropolitan regime of Turkey: authoritarian urbanization via (local) governmental restructuring. Lex Localis-J Local Self-Gov. 13/3 Alpago H (2002) IMF Türkiye ilişkileri. Ötüken Yayını, Istanbul Altıok M (2002) Yeni liberal istikrar ve yapısal uyum programları: Türkiye ekonomisinde sermaye birikimi ve kriz. Praksis 5:77–130 Andersson K, Sjoblom S, Granberg L, Ehrstrom P, Marsden TK (2016) Introduction: challenging the modernisation paradigm. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Metropolitan Ruralities, pp 1–16 Aydın Z (2001) Yapısal uyum politikaları ve kırsal alanda beka stratejilerinin özelleştirilmesi: Söke’nin Tuzburgazı ve Sivrihisar’ın Kınık köyleri örneği. Toplum ve Bilim 88:11–31 Aydın Z (2002) The new right, structural adjustment and Turkish agriculture: rural responses and survival strategies. Eur J Dev Res 14:2 Aydın Z (2005) Agrarian crisis. In: The political economy of Turkey. Pluto Press Aygül C (2016) Electoral manipulation in March 30, 2014 Turkish local elections. Turk Stud 17(1):181–201 “Belediye’den tadilat acilislari”. 16 March 2017, Yörem Newspaper. http://www.yoremgazete. com/belediyeden-tadilat-acilislari-11876.html. Accessed 6 Dec 2019 Bock BB (2019) Rurality and multi-level governance: marginal rural areas inciting community governance. In: Scott M, Gallent N, Gkartzios M (eds) The Routledge companion to rural planning. Routledge, London, pp 103–113 Buciega A, Pitarch MD, Esparcia J (2009) The context of rural–urban relationships in Finland, France, Hungary, The Netherlands and Spain. J Environ Policy Plann 11(1):9–27 Cheshire L (2016) Power and governance: empirical questions and theoretical approaches for rural studies. In: Routledge international handbook of rural studies. Routledge, London, pp 623–630 Council of Europe (1985) European charter of local self-government. https://rm.coe. int/168007a088. Accessed 7 Dec 2019

206

F. N. Döner

Çelik FE, Uçar AY (2016) The inequality-increasing effects of the metropolitan municipality administration in Turkey. In: Social and economic dynamics of development: case studies Çelikyay H (2014) Değişen kent yönetimi ve 6360 sayılı Büyükşehir Yasası. Seta Analiz, p 101 Demirer T (2004) Türkiye’de ‘Tarımın Çöküşü’. In: Özbudun S et al (eds) “Yeni düzen(sizlik)” den başkaldırıya. Ütopya Yayınevi, Ankara Doğan S (2002) Dünya tarım ürünleri ticaretinin liberalleşmesine yönelik düzenlemelerin Türk tarımına yansımaları. Muğla Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi 7 Döner FN (2016) Tarımdan mega projelere el değiştiren topraklar. Toplum ve Bilim 138/139:67–83. (Trans. From agriculture to mega projects: the changing use of land) Douglas DJA (2016) Power and politics in the changing structures of rural local government. Routledge international handbook of rural studies. Routledge, London, pp 601–614 Durak D (2015) Of 6360 metropolitan law announcement in rural perception and expectations. Российский академический журнал 31(1):172–179 Escobar A (1995) Encountering development: the making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton University Press, Princeton Fox J (2007) Rural democratization and decentralization at the state/society interface: what counts as ‘local’ government in the Mexican countryside? J Peasant Stud 34(3–4):527–559 Gallent N, Anderson J, Bianconi M (2006) Planning on the edge. The context for planning at the rural-urban fringe. Routledge, London Giraldo OF (2019) Political ecology of agriculture: agroecology and post-development. Springer Günaydın G (2009) Türkiye tarım politikalarında ‘Yapısal Uyum’: 2000’li yıllar. Mülkiye 33:262 Gürbüz M (2001) Türkiye ve tarım: ‘Bir özet tanım. İktisat Dergisi 412(Nisan):25–26 Gürel B, Küçük B, Taş S (2019) The rural roots of the rise of the justice and development party in Turkey. J Peasant Stud 46(3):457–479 Gürkan H (2008) Tarımda büyüme fakirleşme mi? İzmir Ticaret Borsası Dergisi Hardin G (2009) The tragedy of the commons. J Nat Resour Policy Res 1(3):243–253 Harvey D (2005) The new imperialism. Oxford University Press, Oxford Haughton G, Allmendinger P, Oosterlynck S (2013) Spaces of neoliberal experimentation: soft spaces, postpolitics, and neoliberal governmentality. Environ Plann A Econ Space 45(1):217–234. https://doi.org/10.1068/a45121. Accessed 8 Dec 2019 Hoggart K (ed) (2005) The city’s hinterland. Dynamism and divergence in Europe’s peri-urban territories. Ashgate, London İslamoğlu H (2008) Türkiye’de tarımda dönüşüm ve küresel piyasalarla bütünleşme süreçleri. TÜBİTAK Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Grubu SOBAG Proje No. SOBAG 106K137 Jessop B (1997) The entrepreneurial city: re-imaging localities, redesigning economic governance, or restructuring capital? In: Jewson N, MacGregor S (eds) Transforming cities: contested governance and new spatial divisions. Routledge, London, pp 28–41 Jones M, MacLeod G (1999) Towards a regional renaissance? Reconfiguring and rescaling England’s economic governance. Trans Inst Br Geogr 24(3):295–313 Kaminsky GL, Reinhart CM (1999) The twin crises: the causes of banking and balance-of-­ payments problems. Am Econ Rev 89(3):473–500 Kan K (2019) Contours and challenges of rural change in transition economies: the case of China. In: The Routledge companion to rural planning, pp 410–419 Kay C (2008) Reflections on Latin American rural studies in the neoliberal globalization period: a new rurality? Dev Chang 39(6):915–943 Keleş R (2016) Yerinden yönetim ve siyaset (Decentralization and politics). Cem Yayınevi, Istanbul Kendir H (2002) Türkiye’de tarım sektörü yönetiminde devletin ‘küçülen rolü’ ve yapısal uyum politikaları. In: Dikmen AA (ed) Küreselleşme, emek süreçleri ve yapısal uyum. Türk Sosyal Bilimler Derneği, 7. Ulusal Sosyal Bilimler Kongresi (21–23 Kasım 2001), İmaj Yayıncılık, Ankara, pp 217–270 Kendir H (2003) Küreselleşen tarım ve Türkiye’de tarım reform. Praksis 9:277–300 Kızılaslan H, Ünal T, Kızılaslan N (2016) Effects of new metropolitan law No. 6360 to rural development in Turkey. J New Theory 13:76–85

10  Villages at the State/Society Interface During the Crisis: Toward New Territorial…

207

Koch F (2015) The rules of the game and how to change them: urban planning between formal and informal practices. A Colombian case study. Int Plan Stud 20(4):407–423 Koyuncu M, Şenses F (2004) Kısa dönem krizlerin sosyoekonomik etkileri: Türkiye, Endonezya ve Arjantin deneyimleri. Çalışma ve Toplum:3 Kuokkanen K (2016) Programme-and project-based metropolitan governance and citizen participation: a case study from the Helsinki metropolitan area, vol 23. Metropolitan ruralities. Research in rural sociology and development Lemke T (2007) An indigestible meal? Foucault, governmentality and state theory. Distinktion: Scand J Soc Theory 8(2):43–64 Levien M (2013) Regimes of dispossession: from steel towns to special economic zones. Dev Change 44(2) Llambi L (2000) Global-local links in Latin America’s new ruralities. In: Disappearing peasantries, pp 159–175 Marois T, Güngen AR (2019) The neoliberal restructuring of banking in Turkey since 2001. In: Yalman G, Marois T, Güngen AR (eds) The political economy of financial transformation in Turkey. Routledge, London, pp 135–162 Marsden T (2016) Exploring the rural eco-economy: beyond neoliberalism. Sociol Rural 56(4):597–615 Mengi A, Çınar T, Keleş R (2017) Transformation of rural lands into urban uses: impact upon environmental assets in Turkey. In: Hepparie E et al (eds) Land ownership and land use development: the integration of past, present, and future in spatial planning and land management policies, pp 221–227 Metzger J, Schmitt P (2012) When soft spaces harden: the EU strategy for the Baltic Sea region. Environ Plan A 44:263–280 Ministry of Development (2014) Tarım arazilerinin sürdürülebilir kullanımı calışma grubu raporu (Report for Working Group of the Sustainable Utilization of Agriculture Land). In: The tenth development plan: 2014–2018. Ministry of Interior, General Directorate of Local Administration, Ankara Mooij JE, Bryceson D, Kay C (2000) Disappearing peasantries?: rural labour in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Intermediate Technology, London Noguera J, Freshwater D (2016) Rural–urban in a peri-urban context. Routledge International Handbook of Rural Studies, Routledge, pp 133–142 Olhan E (2006) The impact of the reforms: Impoverished Turkish agriculture. In: 96th EAAE Seminar “Causes and impacts of agricultural structures” at Taenikon, Switzerland Onbirinci Kalkinma Programi 2019–2023 (2019) T.C. Strateji ve Butce Baskanligi. http://www. sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/OnbirinciKalkinmaPlani.pdf. Accessed 7 Dec 2019 Ostrom E (2015) Governing the commons. Cambridge University Press Oyan O (2001a) Tarımda yapısal uyarlama ve Türkiye’nin çıkarları. İktisat Dergisi 412 Oyan O (2001b) 2000 ve 2001 programlarında ulusal tarım politikalarının tasfiyesi. Mülkiye, 25/228 Oyan O (2002) From agricultural policies to an agriculture without policies. In: Balkan N, Savran S (eds) The ravages of neo-liberalism: economy, society, and gender in Turkey. Nova Science, Huntington Oyan O (2009) IMF ve Dünya Bankası’nın tarım reformu uygulama projesinin bilançosu. Mülkiye 33/262: 237–254 Öztürk M, Jongerden J, Hilton A (2018) The (re) production of the new peasantry in Turkey. J Rural Stud 61:244–254 Pierre J (ed) (2000) Debating governance: authority, steering, and democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford Primdahl J (2014) Agricultural landscape sustainability under pressure: policy developments and landscape change. Landsc Res 39(2):123–140 Rauch T (2014) New ruralities in the context of global economic and environmental change-are small-scale farmers bound to disappear? Geographica Helvetica 69(4):227

208

F. N. Döner

Rogge E, Kerselaers E, Prové C (2016) Envisioning opportunities for agriculture in peri-urban areas. In: Metropolitan ruralities. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp 161–189 Rønningen K, Flemsæter F (2016) Multifunctionality, rural diversification and the unsettlement of rural land use systems. In: Routledge international handbook of rural studies. Routledge, pp 312–322 Savaş-Yavuzçehre P (2016) The effects of the Law No. 6360 on metropolitan municipality system in Turkey. ESJ:12/10 Scott AJ, Carter C, Reed MR, Larkham P, Adams D, Morton N et al (2013) Disintegrated development at the rural–urban fringe: re-connecting spatial planning theory and practice. Prog Plan 83:1–52 Stoker G (1998) Governance as theory: five propositions. Int Soc Sci J 50(155):17–28 Suiçmez BR (2000) Küreselleşme ve toprak politikamız. Kamu Yönetimi Dünyası Dergisi:1 Tabor SR (ed) (1995) Agricultural research in an era of adjustment policies, institutions, and progress, EDI seminar series, IBRD. The World Bank, Washington, DC Tonts M, Horsley J (2019) The neoliberal countryside. In: Scott M, Gallent N, Gkartzios M (eds) The Routledge companion to rural planning. Routledge TurkStat 2019/Population statistics/population of Province/District Centers and Towns/Villages by Years and Sex, Census of Population  – ABPRS. http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/UstMenu. do?metod=temelist. Accessed 8 Dec 2019 “Types of Local Governments”. https://www.tbb.gov.tr/en/local-authorities/types-of-local-governments/. Accessed 6 Dec 2019 Ward N, Brown D (2009) Placing the rural in regional development. Reg Stud 43(10):1237–1244 Weaver DB, Lawton LJ (2001) Resident perceptions in the urban-rural fringe. Ann Tour Res 28:439–458 Wilczak J (2017) Making the countryside more like the countryside? Rural planning and metropolitan visions in post-quake Chengdu. Geoforum 78:110–118 Woods M (2007) Engaging the global countryside: globalization, hybridity and the reconstitution of rural place. Prog Hum Geogr 31(4):485–507 Woods M (2009) Rural geography: blurring boundaries and making connections. Prog Hum Geogr 33(6):849–858 Woods M (2019) The future of rural places. In: Scott M, Gallent N, Gkartzios M (eds) . Routledge, The Routledge companion to rural planning, pp 622–632 Yavuz F (ed) (2005) Türkiye’de tarım. Tarım ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı, Ankara Yılmaz H, Demircan V, Dernek Z (2006) Türkiye’de 2000 yılı sonrası uygulanan tarım politikalarının yansımalarına ilişkin üretici görüşleri üzerine bir araştırma. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi 1(2):60–70 Zengin O (2014) Büyükşehir belediyesi sisteminin dönüşümü: Son on yılın değerlendirmesi. Ankara Barosu Dergisi 2:91–116 Zengin O (2018) The metropolitan municipality reform and its impact on rural areas in Turkey. Public Finance & Public Administration, pp 133–151 Fatma Nil Döner is an Assistant Professor at the Department of International Relations, Istanbul Medeniyet University (Turkey). She intends to analyze rural transformation in Turkey with a multi-disciplinary perspective combining rural sociology, political science, and international political economy. Her research interests include land control, state policies and rural governance, and financialization of rural spaces.  

Chapter 11

Concluding Remarks: What Is Next for Rural Areas in the Aftermath of the Crisis? Fatma Nil Döner, Elisabete Figueiredo, and María Jesús Rivera

The chapters included in this book represent a series of images about the impacts of the crisis in the diverse Southern and Mediterranean European rural territories. These chapters focus on case studies with a clear qualitative perspective as a whole. In so doing, the book can be read as a collection of micro-films in which, instead of reading the ‘big-picture’ of the impacts, challenges and opportunities of the crisis, we can observe a series of portraits about these impacts on given communities in their micro-environment in different regions of the Southern and Mediterranean European countries. Rural territories within Southern and Mediterranean Europe, despite some common paths presented in the introductory section, are quite diverse and so are the consequences of the crisis and the challenges and opportunities it may represent. Notwithstanding the diversity, the set of chapters offers us the opportunity to discern some processes that, despite their differing concretions, respond to some of the shared lines of impact of the last crisis on the rural territories of this region. The question would be whether the rural territories arisen from the context of the crisis represent places for new realities or just for the continuity of previous ones.

F. N. Döner (*) Department of International Relations, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey e-mail: [email protected] E. Figueiredo Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] M. J. Rivera Department of Sociology and Social Work, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 F. N. Döner et al. (eds.), Crisis and Post-Crisis in Rural Territories, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50581-3_11

209

210

F. N. Döner et al.

Read in this way, some elements are worthwhile to underline as factors to understand the impact of the crisis in these rural territories. Firstly, it must be observed that the crisis does not impact on a relatively homogeneous and stable reality, even within countries and regions. On the contrary, the crisis hit territories already experiencing uneven processes of development, with unequal demographic characteristics, unequal cultural features, unequal power relations, unequal access to modes of production, land, mobility, policy-making, and so forth. Therefore, more than adding new problems, the measures of austerity imposed during the times of crisis by the international institutions and national and regional governments tended to intensify the processes of vulnerability and inequalities already in place in many rural regions and communities of the Southern and Mediterranean rural Europe. Döner and Ebbreo (Chaps. 10 and 6) accurately highlight the idea that the endemic problems in Turkey and in Italy regarding rural territories are more related to neoliberal policies rather than to the recent crisis, the recent crisis created a favourable context for the expansion of the neoliberal agenda though. In other words, the recent crisis is both an outcome of the already existing structural problems and a trigger of new difficulties. The traditional lack of services in rural areas, such as health and education services, public transport, shops, when compared to urban areas became even greater under the crisis and put in risk the social sustainability of certain rural communities, already threatened by long-lasting processes of depopulation and precariousness. As explained by Sanz and González and by Corrado, Iocco, and Lo Cascio, in this volume, this impact of the crisis affects most structurally vulnerable groups. In the first case, gender and age represent dimensions that may worsen the impact of the crisis. In the second case, the position in the labour market and racialization are essential to understand the impact of the crisis as well as the mobilization of an alternative. This means that along with the crisis, we can also observe, in some cases, the reinforcement of a double exclusion dynamic: the exclusion of the territories and of certain social groups within it. Ebbreo, in Chap. 6, concludes that the mountainous regions and the inner peripheries in Italy have already faced the problems of depopulation, depeasantization, and the lack of services as marginal territories before the crisis. These marginal areas, which have been disconnected from capitalist modes of production during decades, become nowadays much more attractive for their natural resources (biodiversity, water, and wood), and territories that have been redesigned according to neoliberal principles, much of them leading to a commodification of rural natural and cultural features. Secondly, rural territories have been represented, to some extent, as a resilience tool for people living somewhere else. This seems particularly the case for people that felt forced to return to the family villages and/ or farms seeking shelter from the lack of opportunities and precarious life in the city, in the context of an urban-­ centred crisis. The strong support offered by the family ties in times of crisis appears as a paramount aspect in different chapters, strongly related to the role and relevance of family in these countries but certainly also with the availability of properties, land, and/or social capital provided by the family. As Figueiredo, Partalidou, and Koutsou (Chap. 7) show that the reactivation of family (but also social) networks in rural areas is at the core of many relocation decisions and processes. As an

11  Concluding Remarks: What Is Next for Rural Areas in the Aftermath of the Crisis?

211

important cultural and historical embedded practice, common to Southern European contexts, family and the extended network of relatives still provide for their own, acting as an informal welfare support system in difficult times. In addition, Oliva and Rivera, in Chap. 4, highlight the relevance of family as the place to return in times of crisis. These family ties and resources seem indeed able to support resilience and coping with the crisis strategies for many individuals and families. Similarly, Corrado, Iocco, and Lo Cascio (Chap. 5) explain how the return to family home helps the youth to go back to farming, even if they consider embracing new projects related to different agro-food production modes and activities. When looking at the vital projects of the population, it is possible to better understand how the crisis hit their lives beyond job opportunities or precariousness. Across different chapters, it is discernible how the crisis broke dreams and expectations of people that needed to reinvent themselves. The same idea is present in Oliva and Rivera, Figueiredo, Partalidou, and Koutsou, and Ebbreo. Ebbreo based on her field research in marginal territories of inner Italy, emphasizes that young people, as new entrants who are engaged in small-scale, low capital production in rural areas after the crisis do not have access to land and direct subsidies. On the contrary, Figueiredo, Partalidou, and Koutsou suggest that the access to subventions (such as the EU Young Farmers Programme) was an important determinant in the young returnees’ decision to enrol in agricultural activities. The impact of the crisis is also clear in the case of the labour migrants’ projects of life, as well as lifestyle migrants. For instance, as explained by Corrado, Iocco, and Lo Cascio, whereas in some cases they decide to return to their country or region of origin, other migrants see the opportunity to stay by embracing a new project and a new life in rural areas. Thirdly, chapters show the difficulty to homogenize rural life not just across Southern and Mediterranean European countries but also within the various countries. In contrast, chapters evince the immense diversity within rural territories, rural people, and rural experiences. Especially significant is the diversity of actors under the labels of returnees, neo-rural and new residents as it has been emphasized in several chapters (e.g. Corrado et al., Ebbreo, Figueiredo et al., and Oliva and Rivera). Furthermore, the diversity in terms of mobility patterns and means has been remarked, by Sanz and González and Papadopoulos and Fratsea, as a differentiating factor to the access to services and job opportunities in rural areas. Fourthly, the connection between rural and urban areas becomes more visible after the crisis through employment, land governance, services, and food networks. The collection of works included in this volume puts forward a critical perusal of the rural-urban linkages which are a useful lens for understanding the complexities of rural inhabitants’ livelihoods and their coping strategies during and after the crisis, including different forms of mobility, diversification of income sources and occupations, and rural dwellers’ mechanisms of confrontation. First, non-­agricultural employment in rural areas and mobility between urban and rural areas are rising, and labour tends to become informal, unprotected, and precarious both in urban and rural areas in the post-crisis era. Second, new business opportunities in rural areas attract ex-urban dwellers and migrants, including young people, despite the existence of regrets and success stories concomitantly as emphasized in most of the

212

F. N. Döner et al.

chapters in this collection (e.g Corrado et al., Sampedro and Camarero, Sanz and Gonzalez, Papadopoulos and Fratsea, Oliva and Rivera). Moreover, Figueiredo, Partalidou, and Koutsou affirm that in many cases the newcomers or returnees start new agriculture businesses (frequently related to organic agriculture and ‘niche’ productions) that can foster new connections between rural and urban areas, as the markets for these products are generally situated in urban areas. In a similar vein, Nikolaidou (Chap. 9) claims that non-entrepreneurial forms of producer to consumer food circuits triggered by the crisis also strengthen the linkages between rural and urban areas through collective action. Nevertheless, the studies in this book show that the state still accepts rural areas as hinterland or reserves for urban development. In this collection, Döner and Ebbreo criticize the neoliberal understanding of governance in the time of the crisis, which transformed the land and natural resources into commodities. On the one hand, redesigning rural spaces through new governance policies can result in the development of new economic activities in some areas as the coastal Greece ones discussed by Papadopoulos and Fratsea. On the other hand, these policies can also affect the land control against rural dwellers as investigated by Döner in Turkey where agricultural land is set for the investment of urban dwellers for non-­ agricultural purposes. Besides, the austerity programs aim to cut state expenses and force the governments to find new financial resources. Therefore, the state reduces services in rural areas and aims to increase revenues through privatization, land sales, and new projects for construction including highways and industrial zones as equally investigated by Döner. These recent developments have created new accumulation processes through land that are led by local elites and political elites in both the crisis and post-crisis eras. The case studies supporting this book also look at how rural territories and rural people reorganize their lives, networks and jobs in the new context of neoliberal austerity and crisis. The experiences discussed in this volume share some common points. Primarily, that new economic activities emerge from the connection of different interests, bringing together different actors, such as immigrant workers, returnees, new incomers, farm producers, and activists (e.g. Corrado et al.). This fosters, among other aspects, the building of new networks both within the rural and between rural and urban areas, such as rural and urban residents, as well as links between consumers and producers (e.g. Nikolaidou). Similarly, the new activities tend to differentiate from the traditional farming and production functions of rural territories. In so happening, it can be observed how new rural livelihoods refer to alternative modes of production, alternative projects and new cooperatives, among other. Even, circumstances of everyday life can be reinterpreted in terms of collaborative mobilities, and the awakening and mobilization of rural populations as resilient strategies to defeat difficulties worsen by the crisis (e.g. Sanz and González). For their part, Sampedro and Camarero show how the interactions between foreign labour migrants and residents could be seen as an opportunity for social cohesion in depopulated areas, more sustainable lifestyles, environmental protection, and better quality food production. In a similar vein, Corrado, Iocco, and Lo Cascio refer to the importance of cooperatives to promote anti-racist movements in the currently

11  Concluding Remarks: What Is Next for Rural Areas in the Aftermath of the Crisis?

213

multi-ethnic rural areas. All these processes and dynamics may contribute to diversifying both rural economies and societies, bringing new opportunities and challenges at economic, social, cultural and governance levels. Assessing the opportunities and challenges discussed in this collection ultimately requires multidimensional approaches to understand their blurred boundaries. Results discussed in the different chapters included in this volume have shown convergence on the emergence of an increasing number of informal economic activities during the times of crisis in various rural regions of Southern and Mediterranean Europe. As a way of resilience, different actors such as rural dwellers, newcomers, local elites, and investors are benefiting from the laws flexibility by engaging in informal employment practices (e.g. Corrado et  al.), informal financial relations through debt, informal relations for rent through land accumulation, local governance and services (e.g. Ebbreo, Döner), and informal networks of food (e.g. Nikolaidou). Informal relations are disorganized, complex, and embedded in the social, economic, and political interactions among different actors. On the one hand, informal relations are creating opportunities for resilience and survival in rural communities, such as access to employment, financial resources, or land, which people would not have otherwise reached. On the other hand, from a legal point of view, informal relations are undermining institutional strategies and activities and the principles of equality and equity. In addition to informality, the new multifunctionality of rural areas and the diverse mobility paths of different actors seem to point to the existence of blurred boundaries between opportunities and challenges during and after the crisis. An opportunity for one individual or group may result in a challenge for others. Given that rural dwellers can engage in diversified occupations, mobility dynamics and migration processes, the relations between newcomers and residents may indeed contribute to cooperation (Corrado et  al., Papadopoulos and Fratsea, Figueiredo et al.) and social cohesion, but can also introduce new conflicts related to employment market and social life inequalities, as Oliva and Rivera emphasized in Chap. 4. Along similar lines, the reorganization of rural communities and land policies, although potentially creating opportunities especially for marginal lands to engage into different economic activities and contribute to promoting biodiversity and the use of other resources, may also mean the lack of access to land for its real owners, as pointed by Döner and Ebbreo. All in all, this volume highlights the diversity of situations of people, communities, opportunities and challenges during and on the aftermath of the financial and economic crisis of some European and Mediterranean rural territories. Both the Editors and the Authors of the Chapters included in the book are aware that the cases presented here reveal uniquely some dimensions and processes of a crisis that has ample far-reaching consequences. Although further research is recognizably needed to fully understand the wider consequences, opportunities and challenges, this volume certainly constitutes one of the first attempts to unveil the critical dynamics of rural change induced by the financial and economic crisis.

214

F. N. Döner et al.

Fatma Nil Döner  is an Assistant Professor at the Department of International Relations, Istanbul Medeniyet University (Turkey). She intends to analyze rural transformation in Turkey with a multi-disciplinary perspective combining rural sociology, political science, and international political economy. Her research interests include land control, state policies and rural governance, and financialization of rural spaces. Elisabete Figueiredo  is a rural sociologist and Associate Professor with Habilitation at the Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences of the University of Aveiro. She is a Full research at GOVCOPP – research unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies at the same university. Her main research interests are on contrasting social representations of rural areas, traditional food products and rural development and rural tourism impacts. María Jesús Rivera  is Associate Professor at the Department of Sociology and Social Work at the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) in Spain. Her research interests include processes of social change in contemporary rurality, especially those related to the impact of new residents in rural areas, migration to rural areas, processes of social inequality and provision of rural services.