The University of Algarve, in close collaboration with the Municipality of Alcoutim, is offering a master's degree this academic year. e-learning entitled “Sustainable management of rural spaces”, aimed at the problems of these spaces and, in particular, the problems of the Northeast of Algarve.
In the week of April 3rd to 7th, a field week took place , which served to get to know the county better and visit some of the most emblematic developments.
Now that there is so much talk about areas of low density and valorization of the interior (the Council of Ministers has just approved the territorial cohesion program for these areas), now that the tree tourism can be an opportunity to bring a new generation of neo-rurals, a small incursion into the universe of our rural world is worth it, because “not everything that seems is” when it comes to sustainable management of rural spaces.
In fact, rural spaces contain many “territorial distinctive signs”, material and immaterial, and it is precisely these markers that will signal and perspective different versions of sustainability, strong and weak, of the rural space.
I. The ruralization processes and the "capitalization of the countryside"
It's not worth hiding the problem. If we let go of some paternalism and nostalgia and don't confuse reality with our desires, we will better check what is happening in the Portuguese countryside.
In fact, different processes of ruralization are underway, each in its own way, as many processes of privatization of the rural public space and, therefore, a source of many new conflicts of interest in the near future.
These processes have a common characteristic, they are highly capitalized and are part of the general globalization movement, not only capitalist but also ecological.
Here are the main ones:
– Real estate renting;
– Globalized radical conservationism (WWF);
– Industrial afforestation of agricultural land;
– The residentialization of the agro-rural space;
– Energizing renewable resources in agro-rural space;
– The touristification of agro-rural amenities;
– Intensive and monocultural regeneration;
– The hunting of agroforestry resources;
– The recreational and sporting radicalization of the agro-rural space.
It is through these distinct processes of ruralization that the main power relations and, therefore, a good part of the future of the rural world pass through today.
For example, the most recent wave of touristification will undoubtedly have a staining effect on the interior of the country and will inevitably reach the Northeast of Algarve, it is a matter of time.
In this regard, it is good to remember that, for most of these processes of ruralization and capitalization, natural resources are considered "real and financial assets" that it is necessary to "squeeze" in a short period of time to remunerate shareholders and capital well. investment funds.
And how is the sustainability of the rural space in these cases? Although there is no consensus, the literature speaks of “weak sustainability”, since the general principle of “business mobility”, in this case, increases the discontinuation and intermittence of sustainability.
In essence, it is a problem of a technological nature, which "replacement technologies" can solve in the context of precision agriculture, the so-called "ecological modernization theory" or, in a less favorable version, a simple process of green washing.
All these processes of ruralization (and privatization of public space) are, for the most part, based on financing and capitalization mechanisms outside the territories and have no resemblance to the models small is beautiful of “institutionalization of the countryside”, almost always based on public funds with a localist and municipal vocation.
II. The "institutionalization of the field" processes of the small is beautiful
After the more extroverted and capitalized version, now here is the more introverted and institutionalized version, almost always inscribed and justified by the currents of local and endogenous development that we can historically locate in the creation and successive versions of the Leader program and local development programs supported by European funds in recent decades.
We are talking about a very varied series of local and rural initiatives and enterprises very close to the models small is beautiful: subsistence and proximity agricultures, peri-urban agricultures and short circuits, agriculture accompanied by the community, biological agriculture, rural tourism, etc., almost all integrated in the so-called traditional rural and almost all, also, very little capitalized and, therefore, extremely dependent on public support mobilized by local and rural development associations, they are also highly dependent on the respective municipalities.
And how is the sustainability of the rural space in these cases? Unlike previous mobile and technological capitalization, in this case it is a question of weak sustainability, but much more monotonous and artisanal, in which the protection of natural resources is often confused with the viability of the family life framework of the entrepreneurs involved, for we are often close to the threshold of survival.
This fact, however, does not prevent that, in some farms, there is an evident agrochemical intensification of natural resources, since the technological options are generally the most conservative and conventional.
These proximity agricultures need to rapidly improve their collective and networked organization, otherwise they will come dangerously close to exhaustion.
This is also an excellent opportunity to renew the mission and object of local development associations and municipal associations.
III. Network and innovation agricultures and their distinctive signs
The rural space is, less and less, a producing space and, more and more, a produced space. Its economic base is increasingly mobile, in the sense that it is an “event economy” determining the pace and rhythm of the economy of small towns.
We are, therefore, in a transitory situation in which the specific values of rurality, more traditional or more modern, more parochial or more cosmopolitan, are subject to appropriation by very different actors, who use them for very different strategies.
This transition means, sometimes, true agrarian modernization, sometimes, wine, olive or hunting tourism, sometimes, still, a simple decorative element for happenings cosmopolitan, taking advantage of the agri-environmental and rural amenities that are available.
This diversity and plurality of contexts and pretexts of the rural space is an essential condition for the emergence of innovative network agricultures, which are capable of integrating in their management not only the distinctive signs of the markets of the future, but also the territorial distinctive signs , materials and immaterials, which are the brand image of your region.
In this sense, network innovation, with this double typology of signals, is a much broader, more comprehensive and lasting basis for the sustainable management of rural spaces. In this case, we are talking about a strong sustainability, but very demanding in its materialization.
As far as future markets are concerned, these signs will certainly be at the confluence of four major emerging vectors: agroecology, biodiversity, ecosystems and global landscapes.
Here are its main markets: clean products (eco and bio), carbon sequestration, recycled water, provision of ecosystem services, so-called products, landscape arts, functional foods, productive adaptations due to climate change , energy microgeneration, measures of traceability and food security, regeneration and renaturalization of resources and ecosystems in burned areas, etc.
It is important to add, in all cases, the fundamental change introduced by the digital revolution and we will have a very different sustainability management from today.
With regard to territorial distinctive signs, innovations will be "hasty", we are convinced, by the wave of touristification that is underway and which will intensify in the near future, even in the so-called remote areas of the traditional rural, where they "reign" the silence and the spirit of the place, two “products” in growing demand.
From hunting and fishing competitions to summer festivals, passing through nature trails, observing various endemic species and extreme sports, everything is possible to happen in the idyllic setting of the remote Algarve countryside.
Therefore, I dare, from the outset, to issue a warning. Beware of the cosmopolitan fascination and the arrival of neo-rurals of all origins and origins. Therefore, common sense and good taste are recommended, and everything with weight, weight and measure.
From what has been said, it is clear that network agriculture has a great future ahead of it, but also many difficulties along the way.
More social capital and a lot of territorial collective intelligence will be needed to set up enterprises and explorations that are capable of reticulating the two types of distinctive signs. But these will be the most successful and most visited ventures of the future.
Final grade
We saw three approaches “to the field” and three different versions of sustainable management of rural spaces: a more technological capitalized version, a more traditional institutionalized version and an articulated and reticular version bringing together various distinctive signs.
As we said, we live today immersed in the paradigm of mobility and network and visitation economies. In this paradigm, the field is not only the place where a productive occurrence takes place, it is also a predisposition and an aspiration founded, itself, on the inspiration of the cycle of nature.
This is the reason why so many “neo-rurals” nurture a pro-campo culture, even living in the big city.
In this sequence, another decisive aspect that will be contributed by neo-rurals is the way in which we are going to convert online communities into real communities, which manifest the need and desire to return to the real economy, to solid ground and to the setting up of these network agricultures.
Along this path and in this learning, we have the opportunity to review some of the dominant intellectual categories and ideas that have governed us in recent decades, for example: the social stigma attached to the countryside, agroecology sacrificed on the altar of the chemical-mechanical model, productivism and super-specialized monoculture, the various urban-rural dichotomies, the source of numerous misunderstandings, the misunderstandings of progress identified with the exodus and urbanization, the "death" of social capital in the deep rural area, the neglect of rural space by the centers of research and higher education institutions.
In a final summary, we have greater mobility, diversity and plurality of ways of making agriculture and natural resources subject to various processes of ruralization: natural resources understood as real and financial assets that need to generate short-term income, natural resources that need to be preserved for to make small subsistence and proximity agricultures rotate, finally, natural resources that need to be valued by the circular economy in order to function in the markets of the future and be distinctive signs in their territories of origin within the scope of network and visitation economies.
Moreover, through the current wave of touristification that we are witnessing, all the misunderstandings of our rural world will pass, once again.
Author António Covas is a full professor at the University of Algarve and a PhD in European Affairs from the Free University of Brussels
Comments