Rural Development Indicators in Colombia and Mexico

F. A. Pachón Ariza

Rural Development Indicators in Colombia and Mexico

Rural Development Indicators in Colombia and Mexico:

ISBN 978 - 3 - 89574 - 924 - 7

Supporting the Process of Rural Policy

Fabio Alberto Pachón Ariza

RURAL DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS IN COLOMBIA AND MEXICO: SUPPORTING THE PLANNING PROCESS OF RURAL POLICY

D I S S E R T A T I O N zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doctor rerum agriculturarum (Dr. rer. agr.) In Fach Agrarökonomie

eingereicht an der Lebenswissenschaftlichen Fakultät Der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin von Fabio Alberto Pachón Ariza

Präsident der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Prof. Dr. –Ing. Dr. Sabine Kunst

Dekan der Lebenswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Prof. Dr. Bernhard Grimm

Gutachter/innen 1. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Bokelmann 2. Prof. Dr. Klaus Müller 3. Prof. Dra. Laura Trujillo Ortega

Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 20.06.2017

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The current research was possible because of the assistance from several institutions and persons. I would like to express my gratitude to the Humboldt University of Berlin for the chance to reach my PhD studies. Similarly, to the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, the institution that gave me all the conditions to finalise the current research successfully. To DAAD and COLCIENCIAS the institutions that through a shared scholarship financed my expenses in Berlin, all my gratitude. My deepest respect and appreciation to Prof. Dr Wolfgang Bokelmann for the guidance and advise during the research process. Similarly, my entire gratitude and deference to Prof. Dr Cesar Adrian Ramírez for all the commitment to advising several aspects of the research, especially during my time in Mexico. I am greatly thankful for the support in the statistical analysis to Professor Nhora Martinez and Professor Jimmy Corzo, as well as to Jairo Jiménez. My entire respect to all the participants in the different surveys carried out for their disinterested intention to help and improve various aspects of the research. My total deference to the peasants from Colombia and Mexico that participated in the data collecting process, the kindness of all of them was an inspiration to going forward. Remarkably, my entire gratitude to Alcides and María for the willingness to collaborate during the pilot test of the methodology. Many people support me during the collecting data process in Colombia and Mexico, all my gratitude to all of them. Appreciation to my colleagues as a doctoral student, Nithya Daily, Ravi Nandi, Dyvia Rajanna, Gustavo Dias, Claudia Levi, Vandree Palacios, Robert Carcamo, Janet Valverde, Yorcelis Cruz just to mention some of them. My deepest gratitude to Berenice, my mother, she has been the inspiration for most of the ideas in my academic work. To my sister Martha and my brother Horacio, as well as to my nephew Carlos and nieces Angela and Paula for their support during all the time. This research is dedicated to my wife Natalia and my son Jacobo, who was born during this academic adventure. Both of you are the light in my darkness, the motivation to overcome all the obstacles, and the main reason to do every day the things better. I love both of you. Fabio



ii

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Ländliche Entwicklung, besonders in Entwicklungsländern, ist eine der Hauptanliegen Regierungen gewesen. Jedoch ist es in vielen Orten nicht erfolgreich gelöst worden. Mehrere Umstände haben ländliche Entwicklung zu ein 'bösartiges Problem', und folglich in ein interessantes Thema zu analysieren verwandelt, um Methodik vorzuschlagen, die versuchen es in Angriff zu nehmen. In diesem Zusammenhang stellt sich die Frage, die die aktuelle Forschung motiviert: können die wichtigsten mit der ländlichen Entwicklung verbundenen Aspekte, in ein Methodik integriert werden, und dadurch erlauben die relevantesten Probleme zu identifizieren und priorisieren, die im Entscheidungsfindungsprozess von öffentlichen Politiken in Betracht zu ziehen sind, die darauf abzielen die Lebensqualität von ländlichen Einwohnern zu verbessern, während sie ihre Rechte respektieren? Diese Frage wissend, ist die Zielsetzung der gegenwärtigen Forschung, ländliche Entwicklung durch eine Methodik zu analysieren, die erlaubt, die meisten Aspekte zu integrieren, die seine Kompliziertheit bestimmen. In Anbetracht dieses Szenarium, im ersten Kapitel werden zwei in eng gefasste bezogene Themen besprochen: Ernährungssouveränität und Ernährungssicherheit. Diese Diskussion auf das Szenarium der ländlichen Entwicklung verschiebend, bemerkt es, dass Ernährungssouveränität und ländliche Entwicklung ähnliche Ziele teilen; beide zielen darauf ab, die Lebensqualität aller ländlichen Einwohner zu verbessern. Fortfahrend mit der Debatte, Kapitel zwei analysiert die vier relevantesten Ansätzen zur ländlichen Entwicklung hervorhebend auf dem politischen Gesichtspunkt auf Ernährungssouveränität und die Rechte der ländlichen Bevölkerung konzentriert. Kapitel drei beschreibt das 'Heritage and Patrimony of the Peasantry’, ein alternativer Konzeptrahmen, um ländliche Entwicklung zu richten. Es schlägt ein Aufsteigen von den früheren Annäherungen und von den Perspektiven vor und nimmt sachbezogene Themen aus anderen Gesichtspunkten, aber basiert auf Ernährungssouveränitätsgrundsätzen und beschreibt sieben Arten `des Erbes' und 'der Erbgüter' der Bauern: Natur-, Kultur-, wirtschaftlich, gesellschaftlich, physisch, institutionell und menschlich. Zum Zweck, ländliche Entwicklung holistisch zu messen, beschreibt Kapitel vier die Methodik, die verwendet wurde um ein System von Indikatoren und Variablen abzuleiten, um ländliche Entwicklung gemäß dem Konzeptrahmen zu bewerten. Die Delphi Methodik war die Basis, um die bedeutendsten Indikatoren auszuwählen. Schließlich wurden 23 Indikatoren gewählt worden, die sich auf produktive, soziale, infrastrukturelle, kommerzielle, institutionelle und umweltbetreffende Anliegen. Die Anwendung der ausgewählten Indikatoren und ihre Analyse, die auf dem vorgeschlagenen Konzeptrahmen gestützt waren, wurde in zwei Ländern, Mexiko und Kolumbien, ausgeführt. In Kolumbien, sechs ländliche Gegenden sind gewählt worden. Die wichtigsten Indikatoren, um ländliche Entwicklung in diesen Bereichen zu definieren, waren Artenvielfalt, Recycling und Gemeinschaftswerte. Gestützt auf diesen Ergebnissen hat das Menschliche Erbe den Tiefststand des ganzen Erbes der kolumbianischen Bauern bekommen. Kapitel sechs zeigt die Ergebnisse der Anwendung der Methode in Mexiko. Die Hauptindikatoren, die die Erben in diesen Gebieten beeinflussen, wurden als Pluriactivität, Soziale Anerkennung, Artenvielfalt und Recycling erkannt. Gestützt auf diesen Ergebnissen hat das Menschliche Erbe die niedrigste Bewertung vom ganzen Erbgüter der mexikanischen Bauern bekommen.



iii

SUMMARY Rural development, especially in developing countries, has been one of the major concerns of the government. However, it has not been successfully solved in many places. Several circumstances have turned rural development into a ‘wicked problem’, and hence, into an interesting topic to be analysed to propose methodologies to tackle it. In this context the question that motivates the current research is: can the most important aspects related to rural development be integrated into a methodology that allows to identify and prioritise the most relevant issues to be taken into account in the decision-making process of public policies that aim to improve the quality of life of rural inhabitants while respecting their rights? Knowing this question, the objective of the current research is to analyse rural development through a methodology that allows integrating most of the aspects that determine its complexity. Given this scenario, in chapter one, two topics narrowly related are discussed: food sovereignty and food security. Moving this discussion to the scenario of rural development, it remarks that food sovereignty and rural development share similar objectives; both seek to improve the quality of life of all rural inhabitants. Continuing with the debate, Chapter two analyses the four most relevant approaches to rural development, emphasising on the political point of view, focused on food sovereignty and the rights of rural people. Chapter three describes the ‘Heritage and Patrimony of the Peasantry’, an alternative conceptual framework to address rural development. It suggests an upgrade from earlier approaches and perspectives and takes pertinent topics from other points of view, but is essentially based on food sovereignty principles, describing seven kinds of ‘heritages’ and ‘patrimonies’: natural, cultural, economic, physical, social, institutional, and human heritages that the peasantry holds. For the purpose of measuring rural development holistically, chapter four describes the methodology used to derive a system of indicators and variables to assess rural development according to the conceptual framework. The Delphi Methodology was the base to select the most significant indicators. Finally, 23 indicators were chosen focus on productive, social, infrastructure, commercial, institutional, and environmental concerns. The application of the indicators selected and their analysis based on the conceptual framework proposed was carried out in two countries, Mexico and Colombia. In Colombia, six rural territories have been chosen. The most important indicators to define rural development in these areas were Biodiversity, Recycling, and Communal Values. Based on these results, the Human Patrimony got the lowest level of all the heritages of the Colombian peasantry. Chapter six shows the results of the application of the method in Mexico. The principal indicators that affect the patrimonies in these regions were recognised as Pluriactivity, Social Acknowledgment, Biodiversity, and Recycling. Based on these results, the Human Patrimony got the lowest score from all the heritages of the Mexican peasantry. Chapter seven describes the methodology and the results of assessing the impact of the public policies from Colombia and Mexico on the rural development indicators and the conceptual framework to support a decision making and rural development planning context. This chapter uses the Framework for Participatory Impact Assessment (FoPIA) methodology to measure the impact of three different policies on the baseline of indicators analysed in chapters five and six. The results presented a positive influence in the case of Mexico, whereas, in Colombia, just one scenario got positive results. Finally, chapter eight shows the concluding discussion. It organises the debate in the approaches used, highlighting the main contributions of the current research. Similarly, it shows the main empirical results emphasising the isolation of rural areas in Colombia and the loss of identity in Mexico. In the end, it describes the political implications of the results and the likelihood to contribute as a method to make better decisions for public policies of rural development in developing countries.



iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION

1

CHAPTER 1 FOOD SOVEREIGNTY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT: BEYOND FOOD SECURITY 1.1 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.1.4 1.1.5 1.1.6 1.1.7 1.1.8 1.1.9 1.1.10 1.1.11 1.1.12 1.2 1.3 1.4

Introduction The rise of food sovereignty The food sovereignty approach contrasted against the food security approach So, what is food sovereignty? Marketing Monopoly Crop prices Subsidies Food production Hunger Productive resources control Genetically Modified Seeds (GMS) Climate change The food sovereignty approach and rural development Conclusions References

13 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 21 25 26 27 27 30 30

CHAPTER 2 RURAL DEVELOPMENT THINKING, MOVING FROM GREEN REVOLUTION TO FOOD SOVEREIGNTY 2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.1.1 2.2.1.2 2.2.1.3 2.2.1.4 2.2.2 2.2.2.1 2.2.2.2 2.2.2.3 2.2.3 2.2.3.1 2.2.3.2 2.2.4 2.2.4.1 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.4 2.5

Introduction The main approaches to rural development thinking Technocratic Approach Modernisation of Agricultural Production Structuralism Neoliberalism Neostructuralism Sociological Approach Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Community Capitals Framework Human Scale Development Socio-Technocratic Approach Rural Territorial Development (RTD) New Rurality Political Approach Food Sovereignty Rural development from the food sovereignty point of view Supportive issues Conservative issues Inclusive issues Conclusions References

34 35 36 36 37 38 38 39 39 39 40 41 41 41 42 43 44 45 46 46 47 48

CHAPTER 3 HERITAGE AND PATRIMONY OF THE PEASANTRY: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK TO ADDRESS RURAL DEVELOPMENT 3.1



Introduction

52

v

3.2 3.3 3.3.1 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.4.3.1 3.4.3.2 3.4.3.3 3.4.4 3.4.4.1 3.4.4.2 3.4.4.3 3.4.4.4 3.5 3.6 3.7

Rural development, a ‘wicked problem.' How to address and solve wicked problems Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary frameworks Heritage and patrimony of the peasantry, an alternative analytical framework Rural territory Heritage and patrimony Tangible Patrimony Economic Heritage and Patrimony Physical Heritage and Patrimony Natural Heritage and Patrimony Intangible Patrimony Cultural Heritage and Patrimony Human Heritage and Patrimony Social Heritage and Patrimony Institutional Heritage and Patrimony Quality of life and respect the rights Conclusions References

52 54 55 57 58 59 61 61 62 62 63 63 63 63 63 64 64 65

CHAPTER 4 ASSESSING RURAL DEVELOPMENT: INDICATORS BASED ON THE HERITAGE AND PATRIMONY OF THE PEASANTRY ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK 4.1 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.2.6 4.2.7 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.7 4.4 4.5

Introduction The focus of previous research on rural development indicators Focus on Sustainable Development and Sustainability Focus on Production Focus on Infrastructure Focus on Integrative point of view Methodology Literature review Second selection of indicators Panel of experts Online survey Selection of participants Statistical analysis Pilot test and Final Selection Results and discussion Cultural Heritage Physical Heritage Social Heritage Institutional Heritage Human Heritage Natural Heritage Economic Heritage Conclusions References

69 70 71 71 72 72 73 73 73 73 74 74 74 75 75 76 77 78 79 80 80 81 82 83

CHAPTER 5 HERITAGE AND PATRIMONY OF THE PEASANTRY FRAMEWORK TO ADDRESS RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND ITS APPLICATION IN COLOMBIA 5.1 5.2 5.2.1



Introduction Methodology Selection of indicators

87 89 89

vi

5.2.2 Selection of regions to apply the tool 5.3 Results 5.3.1 Arauca and Sur de Bolivar 5.3.2 Gutierrez and Santander 5.3.3 Tundama and Gualiva 5.4. Discussion 5.4.1 Analysis in the Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry framework 5.4.1.1 Cultural Heritage 5.4.1.2 Physical Heritage 5.4.1.3 Social Heritage 5.4.1.4 Institutional Heritage 5.4.1.5 Human Heritage 5.4.1.6 Economic Heritage 5.4.1.7 Natural Heritage 5.5 Conclusions 5.6 References CHAPTER 6 HERITAGE FRAMEWORK AND ITS DEVELOPMENT 6.1 6.2 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.3 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.3.4 6.3.5 6.3.6 6.4 6.5 6.6

AND USE

90 92 93 94 96 97 97 97 98 99 100 100 101 101 102 103

PATRIMONY OF THE PEASANTRY IN MEXICO TO TACKLE RURAL

Introduction Methodology Heritage and Patrimony of the Peasantry Selection of indicators Selection of regions to apply the tool Results and discussion Teotihuacan Etucuaro Uruapan Zimatlan Tejupilco Temascaltepec Breaking and Convergence Points Conclusions References

108 109 109 110 111 112 112 114 116 117 119 120 121 124 125

CHAPTER 7 PARTICIPATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC POLICIES ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN COLOMBIA AND MEXICO 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Methodology 7.2.1 First phase 7.2.2 Second phase 7.2.1 Third Phase 7.3 Results and discussion 7.3.1 Mexico 7.3.1.1 Impact assessment on rural development indicators 7.3.1.2 Impact assessment on heritage and patrimonies of the peasantry framework 7.3.2.1.1 Scenario I: Commercialisation and market development programme 7.3.1.2.1 Scenario II: Integral rural development programme 7.3.1.2.2 Scenario III: Support to productivity to entrepreneur women programme (PROMETE – in Spanish) 7.3.1 Colombia 7.3.1.1 Impact assessment on rural development indicators



vii

129 133 133 133 135 136 136 136 137 137 138 138 139 139

7.3.1.2 7.3.2.2.1 7.3.2.2.2 7.3.1.1 7.3 7.4

Impact assessment on heritage and patrimonies of the peasantry framework Scenario I: Policies of Colombian Development Plan 2014-2018 Scenario II: Zones of Interest for Rural and Economic Development (ZIDRES – in Spanish) Scenario III: Towards a new Colombian countryside. Integral rural reform Conclusions References

140 141 141 142 143 144

CHAPTER 8 GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 8.1 8.2 8.2.1 8.2.2 8.2.3 8.2.4 8.3 8.3.1 8.3.2 8.3.3 8.3.4 8.3.5 8.3.6 8.4 8.5 8.6

Introduction Methodological approaches used Systems thinking approach Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach Critical approach Participatory Multi-stakeholder approach Empirical and theoretical findings Food sovereignty and food security: complementary or excluding? Political approach to rural development Peasantry legacy An alternative to measuring a complex problem Colombia, the isolation of its countryside Mexico, losing its identity Policy and practice implications Final conclusion References

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS ANNEXE 1 SURVEY FORM

161 163 171

Declaration



148 149 149 150 150 151 152 153 153 153 154 155 156 157 157

viii

LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER 1 FOOD SOVEREIGNTY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT: BEYOND FOOD SECURITY FIGURE 1.1 Percent of personal consumption expenditures spent on food in selected countries 2010. FIGURE 1.2. Food availability in lower-income countries (2003-2012). FIGURE 1.3. The value of the leading 15 food exporters worldwide 2010 FIGURE 1.4. International food prices compared to petroleum prices 1990-2013 FIGURE 1.5 Comparison of agricultural subsidies in Colombia and the US, 2005 FIGURE 1.6 Food loss worldwide, 2011 FIGURE 1.7. Countries most affected by hunger in the world, according to World Hunger Index 2012 FIGURE 1.8. Millions of undernourished/starving people worldwide 1990-2012 FIGURE 1.9. Millions of people with malnutrition worldwide, 2010 FIGURE 1.10. Percentage of youths who are overweight in OECD countries in 2011, by gender FIGURE 1.11. Percentage of overweight adults by gender, 2009 in OECD countries FIGURE 1.12. Millions of hectares of genetically modified crops from 2003 – 2011 FIGURE 1.13. Peasantry patrimonies

17 18 18 20 20 21 22 22 22 23 24 26 29

CHAPTER 2 RURAL DEVELOPMENT THINKING, MOVING FROM GREEN REVOLUTION TO FOOD SOVEREIGNTY FIGURE 2.1. Timeline of the main approaches to rural development thinking

36

CHAPTER 3 HERITAGE AND PATRIMONY OF THE PEASANTRY: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK TO ADDRESS RURAL DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 3.1 Rural development connections FIGURE 3.2 Scheme of the Heritage and Patrimony of the Peasantry FIGURE. 3.3 Virtuous Circle Heritage and Patrimony of the Peasantry

56 57 60

CHAPTER 4 ASSESSING RURAL DEVELOPMENT: INDICATORS BASED ON THE HERITAGE AND PATRIMONY OF THE PEASANTRY ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FIGURE 4.1 Importance of the heritages of the peasantry FIGURE 4.2 Indicators selected for the global survey FIGURE 4.3 Indicators selected FIGURE 4.4 Indicators for Cultural Heritage FIGURE 4.5 Indicators for Physical Heritage FIGURE 4.6 Indicators for Social Heritage FIGURE 4.7 Indicators for Institutional Heritage FIGURE 4.8 Indicators for Human Heritage FIGURE 4.9 Indicators for Natural Heritage FIGURE 4.10 Indicators for Economic Heritage

70 74 76 77 78 79 79 80 81 82

CHAPTER 5 HERITAGE AND PATRIMONY OF THE PEASANTRY FRAMEWORK TO ADDRESS RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND ITS APPLICATION IN COLOMBIA FIGURE 5.1 Indicators of the Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry



ix

90

FIGURE 5.2 Regions selected in Colombia FIGURE 5.3 Results of the indicators in Arauca and Sur de Bolivar FIGURE 5.4 Results of the indicators in Gutierrez and Santander FIGURE 5.5 Results of the indicators in Tundama and Gualiva FIGURE 5.6 Results of the Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry in all the regions selected CHAPTER 6 HERITAGE FRAMEWORK AND ITS DEVELOPMENT

AND USE

91 93 95 96 97

PATRIMONY OF THE PEASANTRY IN MEXICO TO TACKLE RURAL

FIGURE 6.1 Description of the Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry FIGURE 6.2 Indicators of the Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry FIGURE 6.3 Regions selected in Mexico FIGURE 6.4 Results of Teotihuacan FIGURE 6.5 Results of Etucuaro FIGURE 6.6 Results of Uruapan FIGURE 6.7 Results of Zimatlan FIGURE 6.8 Results of Zimatlan FIGURE 6.9 Results of Temascaltepec

110 111 112 113 114 116 118 119 120

CHAPTER 7 PARTICIPATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC POLICIES ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN COLOMBIA AND MEXICO FIGURE 7.1 Public policy cycle FIGURE 7.2 Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry FIGURE 7.3 Rural Development Indicators FIGURE 7.4 Scheme of the Framework for Participatory Impact Assessment (FoPIA) FIGURE 7.5 Impact results on rural development indicators in Mexico FIGURE 7.6 Impact results on the patrimonies of the peasantry in Mexico FIGURE 7.7 Impact results on rural development indicators in Colombia FIGURE 7.8 Impact results on the patrimonies of the peasantry in Colombia



x

130 131 132 133 136 137 140 141

LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER 1 FOOD SOVEREIGNTY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT: BEYOND FOOD SECURITY Table 1.1 Top 10 global food retailers 2012 Table 1.2 Millions of people with malnutrition worldwide, 2010 Table 1.3 Land distribution in Colombia, 2013

19 23 25

CHAPTER 5 HERITAGE AND PATRIMONY OF THE PEASANTRY FRAMEWORK TO ADDRESS RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND ITS APPLICATION IN COLOMBIA Table 5.1 Description of the Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry

88

CHAPTER 7 PARTICIPATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC POLICIES ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN COLOMBIA AND MEXICO Table 7.1 Policy scenarios defined in Mexico and Colombia Table 7.2 Scale to assess policy scenarios Table 7.3 Participants in Mexico and Colombia



xi

134 135 136

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS AfBD

African Development Bank

AIS

Agro Ingreso Seguro

AoA

Agreement on Agriculture

ASERCA

Agencia de Servicios a la Comercialización y Desarrollo de Mercados Agropecuarios

BMI

Body Mass Index

CAPRI

Common Agricultural Policy Regional Impact Analysis

DANE

Departamento Nacional de Estadísticas. National Department of Statistics

ERS-USDA

Economic Research Service – United States Department of Agriculture

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organisations oft he United Nations

FARC-EP

Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia – Ejército del Pueblo

FoPIA

Framework for Participatory Impact Assessment

GATT

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

GISSAT

Grupo de Investigación en Suelos Sulfatados Acidos Tropicales

GMS

Genetically Modified Seeds

ICA

Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario

ICBF

Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar Familiar.

IFAD

International Fund for Agricultural Development

IFB

Inklusion durch Förderung und Betreuung e.V.

ISI

Import Substitution Industrialisation

MADR

Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural de Colombia

NAFTA

North American Free Trade Agreement

NGOs

Non-Governmental Organisations

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PNREVAA

National Program of Gathering Empty Containers of Agrochemicals, and the like

PROMETE

Support to Productivity to Entrepreneur Women Programme

RTD

Rural Territorial Development

SAGARPA

Secretaría de

SoSuMAR

Société Sucrière de Markala

TRIPs

Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights

UMATA

Unidad Municipal de Asistencia Tecnica Agropecuaria

UN

United Nations

US$

United States Dollar



xii

USA

United States of America

WB

World Bank

WTO

World Trade Organisation

ZIDRES

Zones of Interest for Rural and Economic Development



xiii

INTRODUCTION

The rural sector provides the society with some of the essential means for its survival. This fact makes the society critically dependent on the countryside in topics such as food, water, fresh air, raw materials, jobs, and the like. However, rural areas, especially in developing countries, suffer from chronic problems of poverty, undernourishment, isolation, illiteracy, health access, quality of education, and so forth. Those problems maintain the countryside and its inhabitants in a disadvantaged position to reach a decent quality of life, and a status in which their rights are respected as human beings. One plausible explanation for the fact of rural poverty was described by Lipton (1977) in his famous book Why Poor People Stay Poor. A Study of Urban Bias in World Development. He described the Urban Bias as the principal reason why poverty remains in the countryside, as well as the conditions under which the trap of poverty catches more people around the world. At the moment of his analysis, Lipton argued that in Low Developing Countries, the class struggle was between rural and urban inhabitants. The urban class represented by militaries, public bureaucracy and a growing middle class always exerted more influence on public policies in their favour. In other words, the public investment and programmes were designed and applied aiming benefits for urban people. On the other hand, the rural population, ever decreasing in number, exerted less political and economic influence, that is why they always were affected by public policies that saw them as second-class citizens (Lipton, 1984). A clear illustration of the Urban Bias is described by Bates (1993) when he explained the goals of the public policy in some countries where the linkage between government and urban labour was solid. In such countries, the government aimed to keep food prices low, for the purpose of protecting the level of purchasing power of urban people to the detriment of the peasantry. Given this example, the Industrialisation by the Import Substitution model (ISI) applied in Latin America during the seventies in the last century had the Urban Bias characteristics. Essentially, the ISI model was looking for the urban industrialisation supported by agricultural activities. The functions of the countryside were clear, providing food at low prices, offering cheap labour, producing more affordable raw materials for the nascent urban industry, and becoming the primary consumers of the urban production (Pachón, 2011). Nowadays, the class struggle described by Lipton (1977) could be reinterpreted in another scenario: the globalisation. Currently, the connections and linkages derived from the communicated market worldwide might argue that the urban and rural struggle has been changed to a struggle between urban and rural rich people, including transnational food companies and agro-industry, against poor urban and rural population, including subsistence agriculture and low-income wages earners, regardless of the country where they live. Hence, most of the problems affecting the countryside, especially in developing countries, could be explained in the scenario of the Urban Bias: migration, isolation, ageing, poverty, illiteracy, undernourishment, violence, loss of identity, and the like. Given the intricacy of the problems that most of the peasants are suffering in rural areas from developing countries, a crucial question has always appeared to people from the public policy, academia, or social practice in the countryside who have been interested in finding a solution to these problems: where is the starting point, or which problem should be solved firstly to reach rural development? The answer to this question is intractable, and there is not a definitive response. The main reason is that rural development is complex; there are many interactions between the causes and consequences of rural problems. In some cases, the effects of the problems are the causes of other concerns. Sometimes the real roots of the problems are hidden by their consequences, and it is a challenge to determine if the cause or the consequence makes it harder to achieve rural development.

1

The main goal of some international Institutions is to reduce poverty because they understand that it is the root of many other problems for most of the people in the world. Peasants having low incomes must“…face long-standing barriers to accessing technology, finance, knowledge and markets” (IFAD, 2016:22). However, despite the fact that according to the World Bank the number of rural poor has decreased in the last years (WORLD BANK, 2015), it is in the countryside of developing countries where poverty remains. According to FAO (2015), 78% of the extremely poor - i.e. those living on less than US$ 1.25 a day- around the world are living in rural areas, most notably in sub-Saharan Africa, South and East Asia and the Pacific. Hundreds of millions of public budgets worldwide have been spent designing policies and programmes seeking to solve poverty, but the root of the problem remains unsolved, especially in rural areas, where poverty is the tragedy in which peasants have been trapped. Poverty creates conditions that perpetuate the tragedy such as child malnutrition, non-school attendance or illness. Most of the rural programmes and policies have focused their efforts on the economic growth. The goal is the improvement of the agricultural production, and hence, increasing the household incomes beyond the international poverty standards. To reach this aim, many organisations at national and international levels have a substantial number of personnel carrying out different activities, especially in developing countries. They train peasants giving tools to create new ventures that allow them to earn additional incomes. Certainly, the results of these programmes have been successful in some places, while in others they have not reached the prospects. That is why the budgets invested almost always overcome people’s expectations. Focusing policies on an economic point of view could be one of the problems of the policies. The reduction of a complex issue such as the improvement of the quality of life of rural people to a productive theme, undoubtedly leaves out crucial topics such as the discussion of the importance of the peasantry in the society, the legacy of rural communities and their traditions, the role of women in the rural society, or the respect of the rights of the peasantry as human beings. Given this fact, it is imperative to construct alternatives to deal with this complexity taking into account the contributions that aim to overcome the development myth. That is why in the grassroots of the current analysis are the proposals from Fals-Borda (1987) with the Participatory-Action research; Esteva & Prakash (1998) with the call to recover roots and traditions; Escobar (1998) with the bottom-up development; and Boisier (2003) with the development like a characteristic of the emergent territories. In this context the question that motivates the current research emerges: can the most important aspects related to rural development be integrated into a methodology that allows identifying and prioritising the most relevant issues to be taken into account in the decision-making process of public policies that aim to improve the quality of life of rural inhabitants while respecting their rights? Given this question, the general objective of this research is analysing rural development through a methodology that allows integrating most of the aspects that determine its complexity. The specific objectives of the study are:



I.

To analyse existing theories of rural development to be considered in the planning process of rural development policies.

II.

To construct a conceptual framework to define and analyse rural development in a comprehensive way.

III.

To derive a system of indicators and variables to measure rural development holistically.

2

IV.

To validate the rural development indicators among different rural areas in Colombia and Mexico and analyse the results in the conceptual framework proposed to establish possible relationships between them.

V.

To assess the impact of the public policies from Colombia and Mexico on the rural development indicators and the conceptual framework to support a decision making and rural development planning context.

To reach these goals, the research adapted the methodology proposed by Probst & Bassi (2014) and took into account the proposal of (Howlett, Ramesh, & Perl, 1995) to deal with complex problems. Figure 1 shows an overview of the logical flow of the research. It starts with understanding the reasons why rural development could be understood as a complex or ‘wicked’ problem; followed by the construction of a conceptual framework that allows gathering the complexity of the system. The next step is the identification of the main indicators that permit to measure rural development, which is validated in different contexts from Mexico and Colombia, and the results are analysed taking into account the conceptual framework proposed. Finally, the impact of the public policies from Mexico and Colombia on the indicators applied in both countries is assessed. 1. Rural development: a wicked problem The inharmonious interests of actors in the rural areas have raised many problems that require decisions on a local as well as federal and state level. Those problems are reaching from simple, to complex, to "wicked". A wicked problem is characterised by a high degree of uncertainty and partly conflicting values. The definition of a wicked (rural development) problem itself is subjective according to the stakeholder, and therefore there is no single correct formulation of any particular problem (Allen & Gould Jr, 1986; Rittel & Webber, 1973) As has been discussed, the focus of rural development programmes and policies has sought to alleviate poverty in the countryside through the increment of agricultural productivity, innovation, and technology. However, the declining in the quality of the environment, soil erosion, or the exacerbation of pest and diseases could be identified as some of the consequences (Shiva, 2016). On the other hand, the social effects of these programmes become evident as well, with an increase of rural migration, illiteracy, or undernourishment (Scoones, 2015). 35% of food waste in a world where more than 780 million people are hungry is one of the main paradoxes of the model applied (Gustavsson, Cederberg, Sonesson, Van Otterdijk, & Meybeck, 2011). Despite enormous and real efforts of many people worldwide, the difficulties in rural areas remain. In fact, rural development holds the characteristics of a wicked problem. That is why, rural development becomes an immense challenge to address for academics, decision-makers, and all the stakeholders involved in these matters. A wicked problem is a complex situation, which, in general, engages several stakeholders and is arduous to deal with or succeed, but exciting and gratifying to solve. Rittel & Webber (1973) defined a wicked problem as a serious, problematic or aggressive condition enclosed in trials and tribulations. A wicked problem is complicated to explain for several reasons. According to Roberts (2012) a wicked problem is usually moderately comprehended, most of the time because its knowledge is inconsistent, and hence, it is tough to explain the various linkages among its causes and consequences. Rittel & Webber (1973) outlined the most important characteristics of wicked problems, which indeed can be framed in the sphere of rural development. These features will be analysed deeply along the current research. A wicked problem does not have a final formulation. Regarding rural development, great approaches have tried to show the way to solve most of the problems of the countryside. However, these approaches have a tendency that leaves out both, the complete understanding and solution for the entire concerns. Thus far, the technocratic approach has been



3

focused on an economic vision. Modernisation, Green Revolution, Neoliberalism, Import Substitution Industrialisation (ISI) and Neostructuralism have proposed the increment in agricultural production as the solution to rural development problems. The focus of the sociological approach, in turn, has been the people instead of their economic activities. In a complementary manner, the political approach, mainly represented by the Food Sovereignty, aims to consider the rights of rural inhabitants as the way to tackle with rural development problems. In general, there is no standard to follow when tackling a wicked problem, although the experiences can suggest guidance. Concerning rural development, the dominant policies to deal with its problems have been focused on the economic activities, instead of on people. The principal goal of rural development programmes has been increasing incomes, instead of overcoming isolation, exclusion, and oblivion (Chambers, 1983). One of the reasons for these results is that policies and programmes have been designed not considering rural people. Additionally, it is important to mention that most of the time they are inflexible to accommodate the fluctuating situations of the countryside. It is hard to measure or proclaim achievement with wicked problems because regularly the consequences of a wicked problem are the causes of new challenges to solve. Regarding rural development, there is frequently a divergence about the causes of problems. Most of the times poverty is declared as the cause of all the problems of the countryside, and hence, the focus of the policies is on increasing incomes. However, there are many reasons for poverty such as illiteracy or lack of social involvement, but also there are many kinds of poverties, especially in the countryside. Given this scenario, the strategies to solve the rural development problems could be adequate or inadequate, depending on the context of the application. Nevertheless, it is crucial to remark that a policy will always generate consequences, some of them positive, but in other cases unexpected outcomes, and hence, new matters to solve appear. The causes and consequences of a wicked problem are linked to each other. Every consequence of a wicked problem is an indicator of another problem, and their causes are the effects of others. Such intricacy is stronger in the countryside, and the trap of poverty is an example. Nevertheless, Along with poverty come other matters such as lack of participation, low education level, illiteracy, and low agricultural production. In the event of illiterate people, the integration of the society is much more difficult, and hence, the access to public policies and programmes. That is why the primary beneficiaries of the public policies in developing countries have been those rural inhabitants that hold land, money, and political power (Roberts, 2000). Sometimes it seems that rural development is beyond the capacity of the governments and their policies to deal with it. Indeed, the failure of many of the programmes creates dissatisfaction among rural people (Brugue, Canal, & Paya, 2015). Tackling with the complexity of rural development requires a multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary method that takes into consideration as many interactions and interconnections of the problems as possible, and that overcomes the spheres of the techniques and disciplines. For example, if the focus of the public policy is agricultural production, the commercialisation of this production must be included in the programmes. Otherwise, feelings of frustration will be the main result. Every wicked problem is incomparable. Even though rural development challenges are comparable, the answers must be diverse. The problems are analogous due to the fact that the policies to tackle, especially in developing countries, have shared a similar outline based on an economic vision. Hence, the effects produce similar problems. However, the solutions to these problems must take into consideration the background of the place and the idiosyncrasy of rural people and must involve them in the process (Bitsch, 2009).



4

Summing up, rural development is a complex and symbiotic condition difficult to explain. It has been inappropriately comprehended. The strategies proposed to tackle its problems have resolved some issues, and numerous challenges associated with rural development continue. For that reason in the countryside, especially in developing countries, there are problems such as poor infrastructure, isolation, poverty, illiteracy, and the like. Two important topics arise. Firstly, the role of rural development approaches in this situation, and secondly, what are the alternatives taking into consideration at the moment of approaching and solving a wicked problem such as rural development? The answer to this question could be found in an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary framework that integrates different disciplines, visions, expertise, and innovative ideas, that allows addressing the complexity through innovative ideas. A disciplinary vision tries to simplify the real world by analysing each component separately (Espina, 2007). Tackling a wicked problem requires a comprehensive analysis. Addressing rural development challenges requires a strategy that overcomes the boundaries of the disciplines taking into consideration the empirical knowledge of rural people. As wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan. Consequently, there is no single, correct, optimal solution. The decision maker must come to a conclusion without knowing if all feasible and desirable options have been explored, and any management choice will ultimately be better or worse rather than true or false. A feasible approach needs developing a learning community among the stakeholders, using an adaptive, iterative, deliberative, analytical, participatory and heuristic process. An important component of such a method is incorporating stakeholder preferences into the models that are currently used to support decision-making. Since wicked problems have no single best solution, decision-makers must seek policies and processes that are "satisficing"-that is, potentially broadly acceptable and implementable rather than optimal. Herbert Simon (1957) coined the term satisfice, combining the words ‘satisfy’,' and ‘suffice’. A satisficing strategy accepts an outcome or judgment as good enough or satisfactory without an expectation that it is in any sense optimal or best (Balint, Stewart, & Desai, 2011, pp. 2). Given that context, the first step in the current methodology aims to discuss the reasons why rural development becomes a complex problem, strongly difficult to solve, and therefore worthy to be analysed deeply. The first chapter seeks to establish as a starting point the differences between two models to understand the ways to address rural development issues: Food Security and Food Sovereignty. Both models share a goal of providing food to people everywhere. However, food security emphasises the food offer at the end, while food sovereignty focuses on the rights of individuals who produce and consume this food. Similarly, this chapter establishes a comparison between the models of agricultural development and rural development. The first one remarks on agricultural productivity, while the second one on people. Although similar, rural development is not the same as agricultural development. Agricultural development refers to economic activities, aiming the increment of agricultural productivity and increasing the incomes of rural inhabitants. The traditional idea of ‘development’, which is associated with economic growth, increased productivity, and improved activities linked to agriculture and livestock production, is narrowly related to the meaning of agricultural development. On the other hand, the rural development includes cultural, social, and human concerns into the environment where the specific economic activities linked to agriculture take place. In other words, rural development privileges culture beyond production, it remarks on traditions beyond techniques, it puts the peasantry, which has been traditionally last, first (Chambers, 1983).



5

Plaza (1990) argues that people usually understand rural development as all the actions and proposals that aim to improve agricultural production and increase incomes of rural populations as the way to overcome poverty, putting in secondary places the measures and suggestions to promote their participation in the decision making. In this scenario, people have traditionally considered that rural development has been achieved when farmers reach acceptable production and productivity levels, beyond the well-being of rural inhabitants. This approach has linked the rural development analysis only to some economic and welfare variables (Plaza & Chiriboga, 1993). Chapter two seeks to analyse the most relevant approaches to rural development. It highlights four main methods: Technocratic, Socio-Technocratic, Sociological, and Political approaches, and discusses their most valuable perspectives. This chapter underlines food sovereignty as the most recent perspective that deals with rural development in a more comprehensive way, emphasising people rather than their economic activities, which is the way to achieve a better quality of life in the countryside. Given the discussion of the differences and complementarities between aspects deeply related such as food security and food sovereignty, agricultural development and rural development, as well as the clear tendency of the main approaches to rural development, it is evident again that the countryside has historically been subordinated to the urban areas. This fact certainly puts the linkages between rural and urban back into the debate, as well as the Urban Bias of the public policy for rural themes in developing countries. 2. Conceptual framework as an analytical tool to address wicked problems Based on the discussion carried out in the two previous chapters, the challenge now is to construct a conceptual framework that allows taking the most important aspects of the approaches described, bearing in consideration as many ways as possible to tackle rural development and establish their relationships. Many times in the decision-making process of public policies, data are assumed as the way to demonstrate results, although simple data sometimes show just a part of the picture. For instance, in Mexico, increasing food production for the international market while the rate of imported food is also increasing is not only a problem of food availability but a manifestation of a more complex situation: the loss of identity because peasants are abandoning the tradition of cropping Milpa. In the case of Colombia, the increment of hectares cropped with agricultural production would result in an increase in food availability for people’s consumption. This fact could be unreal because oil palm plants have replaced many of the transitory crops. A conceptual framework that aims to analyse a complex problem such as rural development comprehensively must overcome the traditional point of view that just emphasises the economic activities of the peasants; it should also include themes related directly to the people, their traditions and the importance that they have to the society. In other words, the conceptual framework that proposes the current research highlights the value of the peasantry, the importance of the conservation of their traditions, the significance of their activities for the entire society, the role that they played in the past and the relevance that it currently has for our future in the middle of the climatic threat. Chapter three describes the Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry as the conceptual framework that covers most of the characteristics mentioned in the previous paragraph. It defines the reasons why the peasantry must be appreciated as a referent for the society, and hence, the reasons why it should be protected for the coming generations. Equally, it explains the motives to promote rural traditions such as solidarity as a way to satisfy the needs of both, rural and urban inhabitants. The conceptual framework organises seven heritages or patrimonies of the peasantry seeking to include the most relevant topics that allow improving the quality of life of rural people while respecting their rights.



6

3. Operationalization Given the complexity of the theme discussed, the stakeholders involved in approaching it need to identify and decide which factors are the most relevant to cover as many boundaries as possible. This aspect is important because when a complex situation is approached, there is sometimes a tendency to prioritise the causes and consequences of problems partially, and therefore to propose limited, inadequate or incomplete solutions to them. Defining the boundaries is crucial because it allows focusing on the most important facets to analyse, and at the same time, it excludes secondary topics or those irrelevant aspects that will surely be solved when addressing the roots of the problems. Achieving this goal could be done through participatory selection of the most relevant indicators. The selection must meet some aspects. Initially, it must gather as many topics as possible to cover all issues, which must be organised according to their relationship to avoid unnecessary duplications. Additionally, it should identify the influence of the topics selected and organised to choose those that exert a positive impact on the others. Certainly, the indicators must fulfil the characteristics of a good indicator for the purpose of avoiding difficulties to measure them. Finally, the most important aspect of the selection process is permitting the participation of as many stakeholders as possible during all the process. Beyond the number of actors participating, it is important to indicate that they have different points of view on the problem. This will certainly ensure that as many aspects as possible can be covered, and hence, the current situation will be analysed in a given rural place in a comprehensive way. Chapter four describes the methodology used to select a set of indicators to measure rural development in a comprehensive way and establishes the relationship of these indicators with the patrimonies of the peasantry defined in the conceptual framework. Certainly, the methodology is based on all the discussion of the previous chapters, but additionally, it takes into consideration the point of view of an expert group to identify the influence of the indicators and the opinion of several stakeholders who assessed a final set of indicators according to their backgrounds. 4. Demonstrating applicability Identifying the current condition of a certain place could be completed using different techniques. One of the ways to take a ‘snapshot’ of a rural area is the application of face-to-face interviews. This kind of interviews allows, beyond recognising the ‘obvious’, a dialogue to ask more deeply about perceptions, feelings, desires, or frustrations in different situations. Sometimes, due to various kinds of reasons such as economic, safety, adverse weather conditions, isolation, and the like, profiles of the countryside mainly take into account people located close to the centre. Given this scenario, the opinions of isolated peasants remain ignored, which means that the picture is incomplete. The application of the indicators and the analysis of the results according to the conceptual framework allow taking a ‘snapshot’ of each region. For this purpose, the current research defined two countries for the purpose of applying the methodology described: Colombia and Mexico. In each country, six different rural areas were selected to carry out face-to-face interviews. Based on the results of each interview, the level of each indicator measured was graded low, medium, or high, which, in turn, served to grade the degree of the indicator in the region. The interaction of the different indicators according to the relationship with the patrimonies of the peasantry determined the level –low, medium, or high- of each patrimony in the region. Colombia is a country characterised by different situations: Amazon forest, mountains, different climates, and high biodiversity that frames the isolation, poverty, and inequality between urban



7

and rural areas. The problems of the Colombian countryside such as land access, traffic of narcotics, and illegal mining have outlined a long war between rebel groups of peasants, landlords, organised criminal groups, and the government. In fact, the most ancient rebel group FARC, signed a peace accord with the government in 2016 to drop the weapons and re-enter to civil life as a political party. According to the last national agricultural census (DANE, 2016), 26% of the Colombian inhabitants live in the countryside, where 44,7% of the population lives in poverty, 20% of the children do not attend school, and 11,5% of adults are illiterate. Given this context, Chapter five shows the results of the methodology applied in six different rural areas of the country. Chapter six shows the performance in the Mexican regions interviewed, which are framed by a serious problem that affects many rural areas in the world, but in Mexico it is extremely evident: the migration of young people and the ageing of the countryside. After the application of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed at the beginning of the nineties in the last century, a progressive declining of the agricultural production to the national market and the increasing of the food export rate of the country to the USA is evident, which is transgressing the food sovereignty and food security of a group of people who has based their history on the Milpa cropping. Given this context, the application of the method allows identifying some facts that otherwise would be difficult to recognise. 5. Impact Assessment Once a methodology to address a complex or wicked problem has identified the most relevant themes, their causes and consequences, it should start with the implementation of the alternatives to solve them. However, before its implementation, it is important to apply some scenarios of simulation to identify the potential impact that the solutions could have on the system. The advantage of the application of this kind of ex-ante methodologies is that it allows decision-makers to recognise gaps that the solutions proposed could hardly cover. It can also help to recognise unexpected results, and then look for changes to improve the strategy. As in the previous step, the different stakeholders involved in the problems and solutions should engage with an extensive participation in the impact assessment process. This fact will potentially allow to cover various points of view, as well as to discover potential failures, and therefore, it will help to coordinate the tasks of the actors working in the territories and the different levels of the implementation. Chapter seven shows the results in both countries – Mexico and Colombia- of the application of a participatory methodology to assess the possible impact that three different policies could have in each country on the indicators and the patrimonies previously measured. Various stakeholders from both countries evaluated, according to their point of view, expertise and background, if the selected policies will improve the quality of life of peasants while respecting their human rights. In the case of Mexico, three Programmes that have been implemented for several years were assessed. On the contrary, in the case of Colombia, the policies selected were the current policies of the government, a new law approved in 2016 by the Colombian Congress, and the rural policy agreement between the government and the FARC as a result of the peace accord. The final chapter of general discussion and conclusions presents a comprehensive analysis of the complete research. It includes an analysis from the methodological point of view, as well as from the empirical and theoretical findings. It also presents a synopsis that remarks on the most relevant topics examined along the different chapters from the policy and practical implications, establishing linkages and breaking points that could be useful for the various stakeholders interested in the rural development debate



8

Finally, it is relevant to highlight that the implementation of the different phases organised in the current research and described graphically in figure 1 constitute a circle of the public policy that re-starts at the moment of an ex-post assessment of the real impact and identification of the new challenges to be solved. It is crucial to emphasise the learning process that the method offers because it identifies alternatives, which could be adapted to different contexts. It means that for each circumstance, the background must be analysed for the purpose of constructing the alternatives that better work according to the context in a participatory manner. Equally, a continuous examination of the circumstances that are usually changing in the countryside will allow the stakeholders involved to identify early warnings and factors that will affect the results. In other words, a systemic analysis of the context will allow making better decisions.

FIGURE 1 Overview of the research Elaborated based on Probst, G., & Bassi, A (2014)

6. References Allen, G. M., & Gould Jr, E. M. (1986). ComRlexi, Wickedness. Balint, P. J., Stewart, R. E., & Desai, A. (2011). Wicked environmental problems: managing uncertainty and conflict. Island Press. Bates, R. H. (1993). ‘Urban bias’: A fresh look. The Journal of Development Studies, 29(4), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220389308422300



9

Bitsch, V. (2009). Grounded Theory: A Research Approach to Wicked Problems in Agricultural Economics. Mini-symposium qualitative Agricultural Economics at the. Presented at the International Conference of Agricultural Economists. Boisier, S. (2003). ¿ Y si el desarrollo fuese una emergencia sistémica. Revista Del CLAD Reforma Y Democracia, 27, 11–29. Brugue, Q., Canal, R., & Paya, P. (2015). Managerial Intelligence to Address‘ Wicked Problems’: The Case of Interdepartmental Commitees. GESTION Y POLITICA PUBLICA, 24(1), 85–130. Chambers, R. (1983). Rural development: Putting the last first. Routledge. DANE. (2016). Tercer Censo Nacional Agropecuario. Hay campo para todos. Tomo II. Resultados. Bogota. Escobar, A. (1998). La invención del Tercer Mundo: construcción y deconstrucción del desarrollo. Editorial Norma. Espina, M. P. (2007). Complejidad, transdisciplina y metodología de la investigación social. Utopía Y Praxis Latinoamericana, 12(38), 29–43. Esteva, G., & Prakash, M. S. (1998). Beyond development, what? Development in Practice, 8(3), 280–296. Fals-Borda, O. (1987). The application of participatory action-research in Latin America. International Sociology, 2(4), 329–347. FAO. (2015). The State of Food and Agriculture Social protection and agriculture: breaking the cycle of rural poverty. Rome. Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., Van Otterdijk, R., & Meybeck, A. (2011). Global food losses and food waste. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (1995). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems (Vol. 3). Oxford University Press Toronto. IFAD. (2016). Rural Development Report 2016 Fostering inclusive rural transformation. Rome. Lipton, M. (1977). Why poor people stay poor: urban bias in world development. (Temple Smith). London. Lipton, M. (1984). Urban bias revisited. The Journal of Development Studies, 20(3), 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388408421910 Pachón-Ariza, F. (2011). Desarrollo rural: superando al desarrollo agrícola. ColecciónTechné. Editorial Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota. Plaza, O. (1990). Cambio social y desarrollo rural. Perú: El Problema Agrario En DebateSEPIA III. Lima: SEPIA, Centro de Estudios Rurales Andinos Bartolomé de Las Casas. Plaza, O., & Chiriboga, M. (1993). Desarrollo rural microrregional y descentralización.. Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación Para La Agricultura-IICA-, San José de Costa Rica.



10

Probst, G., & Bassi, A. (2014). Tackling complexity: a systemic approach for decision makers. Greenleaf publishing. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. Roberts, N. (2000). Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. International Public Management Review, 1(1), 1–19. Roberts, N. (2012). Tackling Wicked Problems in Indonesia: A Bottom-Up Design Approach to Reducing Crime and Corruption. Scoones, I. (2015). Sustainable livelihoods and rural development. Winnipeg: Practical Action Publishing. Shiva, V. (2016). The violence of the green revolution: Third world agriculture, ecology, and politics. University Press of Kentucky. Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man; social and rational. WORLD BANK. (2015). PovcalNet: The on‐line tool for poverty measurement developed by the development research group of the World Bank. Retrieved from http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet



11



12

CHAPTER 1

FOOD SOVEREIGNTY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT: BEYOND FOOD SECURITY 1

Fabio Alberto Pachón-Ariza

1



Published. Agronomia Colombiana. 31(3), 362-377, 2013

13

ABSTRACT Food sovereignty and food security are not the same issues. Both are different, but many people around the world confuse the two. This article explores and analyses the issues surrounding Food security and food sovereignty to explain the differences between them, identifies the major statements in food sovereignty and compares some data from different countries in an attempt to highlight the fact that Food security policies result in hunger, poverty and environmental damage. Food sovereignty and rural development share similar goals; both seek to improve the quality of life peasants and inhabitants; however, economic ideas are unfortunately still prized more than people. Keywords: hunger, rural poverty, food production, obesity-undernourishment, rural traditions. 1.1 Introduction The goal of this document is to show some elements related to food sovereignty. The first issue is the context from which this concept was born, who started the discussion and how it is currently expanding worldwide. Afterwards, there is an essential discussion on how the following two concepts are not same but are confused by many people: food security and food sovereignty. Once clarified, the third part shows food sovereignty's key features and goals. Based on these topics, this article highlights how food sovereignty goals are opposed to World Trade Organization (WTO) goals. Finally, the present article discusses how food sovereignty and rural development are closely linked because they have similar goals. Through a comprehensive literature review, including the latest research, for the different issues related to this topic, the food sovereignty principles were thoroughly analysed. These principles, such as access to different kind of resources, production modes, transformation and commercialisation methods and agricultural policies, among others, show the main differences between the food security and food sovereignty approaches, which have been highlighted by authors such as Rosset (2003), Aistara (2013), Allen (2013), Altieri (2011), and so on, and statistically revealed in studies from institutions such as Garay (2010) or FAO (2012) and authors such as Gustavson (2011) , Kachika (2011) and Kneafsey (2013). 1.1.1

The rise of food sovereignty

The food sovereignty concept began to be discussed in the early nineties when a new economic model, neoliberalism, was implemented in many countries worldwide. In this concept, state subsidies disappeared, and the free market became a new development guideline. In this context, food commercialization is part of the open market. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was replaced during the Uruguay Round negotiations in 1995 by the World Trade Organization to regulate the new market. Small farmer organisations and civil society organisations, in response to the new policies, proposed the food sovereignty approach as an alternative for the survival of agriculture in southern countries. Initially, the scenario involved condemning unfair trade practices for rural peasants, but the proposal grew and, at the same time, more people and organisations began joining the worldwide movement, wherein ‘Vía Campesina’ played a leading role. It is remarkable that, in this worldwide battle against the model, indigenous people, as well as peasants, have joined the fight because both social groups have been affected. In these social movements, small farmer organisations, civil society and indigenous organisations have been criticising developed-country policies that provide agricultural export subsidies. The consequences of these policies are food dependency, malnutrition and food vulnerability in developing countries (Laroche and Postolle, 2013).



14

A basic topic of the food sovereignty discussion is related to the meaning of peasant. So, a basic topic of food sovereignty discussion is related to the sense of peasantry. In simple terms, it means “people of the land that, worldwide, have a special relationship with the land and food production (...) and are much more closely linked to the places where the food is grown and to how the food is grown” (Desmarais, 2008). This means that rural farmers everywhere share similar feelings, which explains how the food sovereignty movement is growing worldwide. Even though this analysis is focused on peasants, it is necessary to highlight that Indigenous people are suffering the same consequences of this model as are other rural inhabitants. This debate brings up the scenario of an old academic debate related to the survival of peasantry from the seventies, mainly in Mexico but also generally in Latin America. Based on the “nonpeasants” scientists’ point of view, the future for peasants, in a development model based on food production for international markets, would disappear because they were not competitive. On the other hand, the “pro-peasant” scientists argued that peasants would survive because they could combine their land labour with other kinds of work, becoming semi-proletariats seeking to improve their family incomes (Pachón, 2011). As a result of this social struggle, global indigenous and peasants movements have brought, even to the developed countries, food sovereignty and food security issues. The main result is that the national constitutions of some countries, such as Ecuador, Bolivia, Nepal, Mali, Nicaragua and Venezuela, have adopted food sovereignty as a principle (Ortega and Rivera, 2010). As a response to peasant and indigenous movements, international institutions relaunched the food security concept as an alternative for solving the global nutrition issue. However, this concept is not extensive or integral like food sovereignty. The following section shows some differences between these topics. 1.1.2

The food sovereignty approach contrasted against the food security approach

As been discussed, the food sovereignty concept was started during the nineties while food security is older. During the post-war period, the paradigm of agricultural development based on food self-sufficiency in all countries was the most relevant one. Even today, in many countries, this idea predominates and has been confused with rural development. A political proposal that aimed to achieve agricultural development was the Import Substitution Industrialisation (ISI) model, which has been implemented in developing countries for at least four decades. In the ISI model, agricultural production is the basis for generating incomes that, in the future, will ensure ‘development’ of these countries (Pachón, 2011). If the agricultural sector is basic to development, it will be necessary to increase its productivity. That is why governments have spent much money to improve this sector. Afterwards, agricultural production would be able to meet domestic demands and produce surpluses for international markets as well. In this context, the first official definition of Food Security was released in 1974: “…food security is the availability, at all times, of adequate global food supplies of basic foodstuffs to sustain a steady expansion of food consumption and to offset fluctuations in production and prices” (United Nations 1975; Patel, 2009). If the definition is analysed, some unclear, central issues might be found. For instance, the importance of the place where food is being produced or who is producing it and how is not a relevant matter. In the mid-nineties, while the indigenous and peasant movements were talking about food sovereignty, the FAO declared that food security is when, “…at the individual, household, national, regional and global levels, when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for



15

an active and healthy life (FAO, 1996; Patel, 2009). Once again, clearly, some topics are left out of the discussion when talking about food security. When the eighties were coming to an end, concerns for environmental care were increasing, mainly due to the Brundtland report. However, this issue was not present in the food security approach. Also, climate change and fair trade were not discussed. Possibly, fair trade was secondary due to the WTO being recently created and new agreements on the agricultural trade being developed. This particular topic will be examined in the following section. at the beginning of this century, the FAO again talked about Food Security and it was defined as: “…a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (FAO 2001; Patel, 2009). The Food Security discussion has remained similar over time. However, nowadays, it includes two central goals: “…first, that food production needs to increase by 50% by 2030 to meet rising demand; and second, that food production needs to double by 2050 to feed a world population of 9 billion” (Maye and Kirwan, 2013). Based on the food security concept, food’s origin is not a crucial matter. So, some developed countries can flood developing countries with food at an artificially low price due to heavily subsidised production, producing obvious consequences such as bankruptcies, immigration and job losses for indigenous and rural populations. A clear example of this argument is the ‘North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Refugees’ resulting from massive US corn imports to Central America with more than 6.2 million migrates up until 2005 (Barker, 2007). This is why food sovereignty proposes a different viewpoint, which is discussed in next section. Some of the principal Food Sovereignty characteristics are compared with food security. Additionally, some data on the global food state are reviewed to identify the consequences of the food security model. 1.1.3

So, what is food sovereignty?

Food Sovereignty is a political concept that elucidates some ideas related to food production, commercialization, availability and the right of people to decide, based on their cultural heritage, how they want to feed themselves. According to Patel (2009), food sovereignty “…is the right of peoples to define their own food and agriculture; to protect and regulate domestic agricultural production and trade in order to achieve sustainable development objectives; to determine the extent to which they want to be self-reliant; to restrict the dumping of products in their markets; and to provide local fisheriesbased communities the priority in managing the use of and the rights to aquatic resources. Food sovereignty does not negate trade, but rather, it promotes the formulation of trade policies and practices that serve the rights of peoples to safe, healthy and ecologically sustainable production”. According to the declaration of the Forum for Food Sovereignty in Nyéléni (Mali) 2007: “Food sovereignty prioritises local and national economies and markets and empowers peasants and family farmer-driven agriculture, artisanal – fishing, pastoralist-led grazing, and food production, distribution and consumption based on environmental, social and economic sustainability. Food sovereignty promotes transparent trade that guarantees just incomes to all peoples as well as the rights of consumers to control their diet and nutrition. It ensures that the rights to use and manage lands, territories, waters, seeds, livestock and biodiversity are in the hands of those of us who produce food. Food sovereignty implies new social relations free of oppression and inequality between men and women, peoples, racial groups, social and economic classes and generations” (Patel, 2009).



16

These are the basic elements of food sovereignty; some authors such as Ortega and Rivera (2010) discuss other topics as part of the discourse. However, all of them could be considered part of these principles: Resources access. Food sovereignty seeks to encourage and support individual and communal access and control over resources, such as land, seeds, loans, water, infrastructure, and so on. In a sustainable way, it also seeks to respect the rights of use of indigenous and native communities, with a particular emphasis on access for women. Production models. Food Sovereignty tries to increase local production by recovering diversified production by families; and to also recover, validate and disseminate traditional production models in an environmentally, socially and culturally sustainable way. This concept supports the endogenous agricultural development models and the right to produce food. Transformation and commercialisation. Food sovereignty defends the right of rural farmers, landless rural workers, fisherman, pastoralist and indigenous people to sell their products to feed the local population. This involves the creation and support of local markets and direct sales with a minimum of intermediaries. The right to food consumption. People have the right to healthy food consumption, nutritious and culturally appropriate food from local producers, and production by environmentally sustainable farming techniques. Agricultural policies. Peasants have the right to know about, participate in and decide on public policies related to feeding, land reform, government profits, social organisations and human rights. In the same way, the declaration of the Forum for Food Sovereignty, Nyéléni (Mali) 2007, describes some issues that are part of the food sovereignty principles (Patel, 2009): • •

•

• •

• •

• •



Recognition of and respect for women’s roles and their rights, including decisions related to their bodies; All people, mainly in developing countries, should be able to live with decorum, earning a living wage for their labour and having the opportunity to remain in their homes, if they so choose; Peasants should be able to conserve and rehabilitate rural environments, fish populations, landscapes and food traditions based on ecologically sustainable management of soils, water, seas, seeds, livestock and all another biodiversity; Recognise and respect diversity of traditional knowledge, peasant’s values, food, language and culture, and the methods for organising and expressing them; Peasants need a genuine and integral agrarian reform that guarantees full rights to land access, defends and recovers territories belonging to indigenous peoples, ensures fishing communities’ access and control over their fishing areas and ecosystems, assures decent jobs with fair remuneration and labour rights for all, and a future for young people in the countryside; Peasants should be able to share their lands and territories peacefully and equitably among their peoples, including indigenous, artisanal fishers, pastoralists, or others; In the case of natural and human-created disasters and conflict-recovery areas, Food Sovereignty acts as a form of ‘insurance’ that strengthens local recovery efforts and mitigates negative impacts; Peasant’s' power to make decisions about their material, natural and spiritual heritage should be defended; All peasants and indigenous people have the right to defend their territories from the actions

17

of transnational corporations. Based on Rosset (2003), the following section makes a comparison between the food security and food sovereignty models, and in some cases data, emphasising the consequences of the food security model in Colombia. 1.1.4

Marketing

In the food security approach, food is part of the free market. Meanwhile, in the food sovereignty model, food is left out of the free trade agreements. According to Barker (2007), the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) signed by the WTO has been adversely affecting peasants and rural farmers in both developed and developing countries. AoA is focused on four areas:

•

• • •

Market access, where countries are required to open national and local economies for foreign products and are even required to import a certain minimum level of agricultural commodities: ‘minimum access rules’; Reduction of trade barriers, countries are required to convert import quotas into taxes, which are reduced and finally eliminated over time; Domestic supports, countries are required to diminish subsidies to domestic farmers; although, developed countries have managed to maintain their subsidy structures and mainly protect their large commodity producers; Export competition, countries are required to bind their export subsidies levels to approved rules.

Fig.1.1 shows that, in developing countries, people spend more of their income on food than in developed countries. When these data are compared with those in Figure 1.7 (food waste), in countries where people spend less money on food, developed countries, the biggest portion of food loss is clearly in the consumption phase, reaching almost 30%. In those where people spend less money on food, developed countries, governmental subsidies are significantly higher. As a result, hunger is greater in countries where people spend more money on food, developing countries, even though natural resources for crop production are higher than in developing countries.

Cameroon Russia Venezuela India Thailand Brazil South Arabia Chile Mexico China Poland Israel Czech Republic South Korea New Zealand Japon Italy France Hong Kong, China Germany Australia Canada United Kingdom United States

0,00

5,00

10,00

15,00

20,00

25,00

30,00

35,00

40,00

45,00

50,00

Percent of incomes

FIGURE 1.1 Percent of personal consumption expenditures spent on food in selected countries 2010. Source: IFB (2012).

18

The Food Security approach highlights food availability, which is why, from 2003 to 2012 (Fig. 1.2) food availability was increased in lower-income countries; nevertheless, food prices were at least twice those of developed countries. So, food is available but hardly obtainable for everyone due to the cost; as discussed above, this is a difference from food sovereignty. Even in the food security approach, other issues lack attention, such as child labour in food production, contamination of water resources and the environment, and so on. 1.000.000,00

Food in thousands of tons

800.000,00 600.000,00 400.000,00 200.000,00 0,00 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

FIGURE 1.2. Food availability in lower-income countries (2003-2012). Source: ERS-USDA (2012) Fig. 1.3 shows the 15 leading food export countries. There is a remarkable contradiction for the money spent on food (Fig. 1.1), in that, in some countries such as Mexico, India, Thailand, Brazil, China or Russia, people spend more money on food but, at the same time, their countries are some of the major food exporters worldwide.

Turkey Russia Federation New Zealand India Mexico Australia Malaysia Thailand Indonesia Argentina Canada China Brazil United States European Union (27) 0,00

50,00

100,00

150,00

200,00

250,00

300,00

350,00

400,00

450,00

500,00

Billions of U.S Dollars

FIGURE 1.3. The value of the leading 15 food exporters worldwide 2010 Source: World Trade Organisation (2011). 1.1.5

Monopoly

Also, in the food security approach, food price, food availability, food exportation, and monopoly are not a problem.



19

Table 1.1 Top 10 global food retailers 2012. 2012 sales billions (US$)

Number of stores

443.9

10,130

Carrefour (France)

113.1

9,672

Tesco (UK)

103.5

6,234

Metro Group (Germany)

98.2

2,187

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Moldova

Schwarz Group (Germany)

90.6

11,029

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands

Kroger Co. (US)

90.4

2,405

US

87.4

592

Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Taiwan, U.K., U.S.

Aldi (Germany)

73.3

9,845

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland

Target Corp. (US)

69.9

1,763

US. Open in Canada in 2013

Rewe Group (Germany)

66.9

13,423

Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine

Company

Wall-Mart Stores (US)

Costco (US)

Operation

Argentina, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Japan, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique Albania, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Colombia, Greece, Cyprus, India, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Poland, Singapore, Spain, Taiwan, Turkey China, Czech Republic, Hungary, India, Ireland, Japan, Malaysia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, South Korea, Thailand, Turkey, U.K., U.S.

Source: Penton (2013). It is evident that the main food retailers are large enterprises from industrialised countries. However, in almost all cases, food commercialization is carried out in Europe, North America and some Latin-American, Asian and African countries. A possible explanation is the higher incomes in these countries; but much of the food, for sure, has been produced in other nations, which are not the target market. 1.1.6

Crop prices

In the food security approach, the market assigns right prices. While in the food sovereignty proposal, there is a claim of fair prices because peasants have the right to receive just incomes.



20

450,0

Food Price Index

400,0

Meat Price Index

350,0

300,0

Dairy Price Index

250,0

Cereals Price Index

200,0

150,0

Oils Price Index

100,0

Sugar Price Index

0,0

1/1990 5/1990 9/1990 1/1991 5/1991 9/1991 1/1992 5/1992 9/1992 1/1993 5/1993 9/1993 1/1994 5/1994 9/1994 1/1995 5/1995 9/1995 1/1996 5/1996 9/1996 1/1997 5/1997 9/1997 1/1998 5/1998 9/1998 1/1999 5/1999 9/1999 1/2000 5/2000 9/2000 1/2001 5/2001 9/2001 1/2002 5/2002 9/2002 1/2003 5/2003 9/2003 1/2004 5/2004 9/2004 1/2005 5/2005 9/2005 1/2006 5/2006 9/2006 1/2007 5/2007 9/2007 1/2008 5/2008 9/2008 1/2009 5/2009 9/2009 1/2010 5/2010 9/2010 1/2011 5/2011 9/2011 1/2012 5/2012 9/2012 1/2013

50,0

Petrol Price Index

FIGURE 1.4. International food prices compared to petroleum prices 1990-2013. Source: FAO (2013a) and Index Mundi (2013). The evolution of international food prices has shown an incremental tendency, mainly in the last few years. The higher prices are consistent with high international petroleum prices. An explanation for this could be the great use of chemical fertilisers, but mainly this is due to the fact that petroleum is used for transportation over largest distances by ships. 1.1.7

Subsidies

In the food security approach, grants are part of WTO agreements. In contrast, Food sovereignty requests the elimination of this kind of aid especially, which are geared toward the larger food producers. Dumping is a common practice used by some countries to protect their production.

FIGURE 1.5 Comparison of agricultural subsidies in Colombia and the US, 2005. Source: Garay (2010). In 2012, Colombia signed a Free Trade Agreement with the United States. In the food chapter of this Agreement, an important point was related to subsidies. In 2005, the United States had

21

$71,269 million US Dollars in grants for the agricultural sector, while Colombia spent $1,143 million US Dollars. The United States used 77% of its subsidies for ‘internal aid’ and 23% for ‘border aid’. Meanwhile, Colombia used just 23% for ‘internal aid’, and the highest, 77%, for ‘border air’. In the United States, ‘Internal aid’ made a special target of export crops. When the Agreement was signed, Colombia agreed to eliminate, after 15 years, all ‘border aid’, while the United States will keep all ‘internal aid’. This means that Colombia must eliminate the highest percentage of subsidies, but the US will maintain the highest proportion. 1.1.8

Food production

In the food security approach, food is a commodity and agricultural production must be carried out in the most efficient way. In the food sovereignty approach, food is a human right and agricultural production is one of the rights of rural people. Food waste in the food security approach is not necessarily a problem because the goal is food commercialization. 16

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

14

Percentage

12

POSTHARVEST HANDLING & STORAGE

10

PROCESSING AND PACKIGING

8 6

DISTRIBUTION

4 2 0

CONSUMPTION

CEREALS

ROOTS & TUBERS OIL SEEDS & PULSES

FRUITS & VEGETABLES

MEAT

FISH & SEE FOOD

MILK

FIGURE 1.6 Food loss worldwide, 2011. Source: Gustavson et al., (2011). According to Gustavson et al. (2011), food loss worldwide in 2011 was 36.17%, mainly in the consumption phase. In developed countries, the highest percentage (nearly 30%) of cereals, roots & tubers, fish & seafood and fruit and vegetables is during the consumption phase. Meanwhile, in developing countries, such as in sub-Saharan Africa, higher losses are seen in the production phase. The minimum loss in developing countries plainly occurs in the consumption phase (less than 3%). Waste food in postharvest handling and storage was 5.68%; 7.16% in processing and packaging and 6.39% in distribution. Paradoxically, according to Barker (2007), more than forty million people die of hunger each year worldwide. The natural question is: how many people could be fed worldwide with this 36.71% food waste? 1.1.9

Hunger

In the food security approach, hunger is due to inefficiency, but, in the food sovereignty model, it is due to distribution. According to the above tables, some reasons for hunger in the world have been demonstrated. According to Barker (2007), during 2006, food production worldwide was enough to supply 2,720 Kcal per person daily. A general average consumption per person daily is close to 2,000 Kcal, which means hunger in the world is not a production issue. Figure 1.7 shows the countries most affected by hunger in 2012, according to the World Hunger Index; most of them are located in Africa, the continent that has the most land that is suitable for cultivation. India is part of this list, even though it is one of the 15 major food export

22

Index Value

countries in the world (Figure 1.3). According to Barker (2007), in 2006, more than 900 million people worldwide suffered from hunger. In Colombia, during 2012, 6 million people suffered from hunger. 40,00 35,00 30,00 25,00 20,00 15,00 10,00 5,00 0,00

FIGURE 1.7. Countries most affected by hunger in the world, according to World Hunger Index 2012. Source: Global Hunger Index (2012). Another hunger indicator is undernourishment or malnutrition, defined as an unhealthy and weak person due to insufficient food or inadequate food types. On the other hand, overweight problems are mainly due to an excessive intake of inadequate food.

1990-92 1991-93 1992-94 1993-95 1994-96 1995-97 1996-98 1997-99 1998-00 1999-01 2000-02 2001-03 2002-04 2003-05 2004-06 2005-07 2006-08 2007-09 2008-10 2009-11 2010-12

800,00

850,00

900,00

950,00

1.000,00

1.050,00

FIGURE 1.8. Millions of undernourished/starving people worldwide 1990-2012. Source: FAO, WFP and IFAD. 2012. According to Fig. 1.8, the number of people suffering this condition has been decreasing since 1990. From 2008 to 2011, there was an increase in comparison to the previous period. Even though this number is decreasing, more than 850 million people worldwide are suffering from undernourishment. Asia and the Pacific are the places in the world with more malnourished people, more than 500 million. Again, contradictorily, some countries of this area, such as New Zealand, India, Australia, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia are part of the 15 major food export countries (Figure 1.3).



23

Asia and the Pacific Sub-Saharan Africa Latin America and the Caribbean Middle East and North Africa Industrial countries 0,00

100,00

200,00

300,00

400,00

500,00

600,00

700,00

FIGURE 1.9. Millions of people with malnutrition worldwide, 2010. Source: FAO, WFP. (2010). It is remarkable that some countries, such as Nicaragua, Peru, Ghana, Albania, Mexico, Turkey and Kuwait, have managed to decrease, by at least in 50%, the number of malnourished people during the last 20 years. Unfortunately, in other countries, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, it has increased by more than 60% (FAO, 2012). Table 1.2. Millions of people with malnutrition worldwide, 2010. Top Countries

15

Kcal required /day

Kcal cons/ day

Austria

1964

00 3732

Belgium

1968

3664

Belarus

1927

Greece

mill of Hungry People

Lower 15 Countries

Kcal required/ day

mill of Hungry People

Kcal cons/ day

Namibia

1836

2106

1

0

Mozambique

1711

2065

9

3604

0

Uganda

1684

2045

12

1951

3588

0

Kenya

1728

2041

13

Luxembourg

1984

3564

0

Tanzania

1690

2018

18

USA

1975

3562

0

Gaza

1755

2011

1

Italy

1948

3554

0

Congo, Rep.

1683

2005

34

Ireland

1925

3545

0

Yemen

1687

1992

8

Turkey

1863

3543

0

Haiti

1813

1973

5

Portugal

1948

3538

0

Madagascar

1696

1965

7

Germany

1970

3489

0

Comoros

2169

1931

1

Cuba

1907

3472

0

Timor-Leste

1648

1856

0

France

1934

3469

0

Zambia

1694

1793

6

Romania

1927

3421

0

Eritrea

1756

1636

4

Hungary

1957

3421

0

1753

1525

6

Based on: FAO. 2013 fs/datos/es/#.Uo90UaV__eE



Burundi

available

24

in

http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-

In Table 1.2, the first column shows the top 15 countries with the highest Kcal intake per day. In contrast, the fourth column shows the 15 countries with the lowest kcal intake per day. For each country, the average required kcal per day is shown as well. Additionally, the number of people that go hungry in each country is shown. Paradoxically, in some countries, people lack food, but in other nations, the new disease is obesity. For example, in the US, Germany and Belgium, among others, more than 60% of the population is suffering from overweight problems. Body mass index (BMI) is a simple index of weight-for-height that is commonly used to classify overweight and obese adults. It is defined as a person's weight in kilogrammes divided by the square of his or her height in meters. Figure 1.10 shows the percentage of children that are overweight in OECD countries. It is important to remark that this is a public health problem due to the high number of these kids that, in the future, may suffer diseases associated with inappropriate food intake. Greece USA Italy Mexico New Zealand Spain Chili Canada Slovenia Hungary United Kingdom Iceland Australia Portugal Brazil Russia Finland Czech Republic Germany India Sweden Slovakia Netherlands South Africa Japan Switzerland Denmark Poland France Norway South Korea Turkey China

0,00

Boys Girls

5,00

10,00

15,00

20,00

25,00

30,00

35,00

40,00

45,00

50,00

FIGURE 1.10. Percentage of youths who are overweight in OECD countries in 2011, by gender. Source: OECD (2011) On the other hand, Figure 1.11 shows the same issue for adults. Importantly, the majority of this problem is in developed countries, mainly Europe, North America and some countries in Asia. Particular emphasis is placed on India because, while some part of the population, mainly children, is suffering from being overweight, it is one of the countries with a higher World Hunger Index.



25

United States Mexico New Zealand Chile Australia Canada United Kingdom Ireland Luxembourg Finland Iceland Hungary Greece South Africa Estonia Czech Republic Slovakia OECD average Slovenia Spain Turkey Portugal Germany Russia Brazil Israel Belgium Denmark Poland Austria Netherlands Sweden France Italy Norway Switzerland Japan South Korea China Indonesia India

Men

Women

0,00

5,00

10,00

15,00

20,00

25,00

30,00

35,00

40,00

FIGURE 1.11. Percentage of overweight adults by gender, 2009 in OECD countries. Source: OECD (2011). According to the National Survey of Nutrition Situation (ICBF, 2010), in Colombia, 35.0% of women and 34.5% of men are suffering overweight problems. 20.1% of women and 11.5% of men are suffering obesity. Malnourished people in rural areas is at 27%; while in urban areas, it is 16.7% (ICBF, 2010). The Colombian Hunger Index is 4, considered low (Global Hunger Index, 2012). As in India, the Colombian nutritional situation is paradoxical because Colombia uses many land, water and productive resources for producing enough food for all of its inhabitants, but more than 6 million people go hungry (FAO, 2012). Perhaps an answer to this paradox is the distribution of land; Table 1.3 presents some data on this issue. 1.1.10 Productive resources control The food security approach proposes that the control of productive resources must be kept in private hands. In the food sovereignty approach, this control must be with rural farmers and indigenous populations, especially resources such as land and seeds, which they have the right to keep and share with other rural farmers and indigenous peoples. Table 1.3. Land distribution in Colombia, 2013. SIZE

FARMS

%

OWNERS

%

SURFACE (Ha)

%

< 1 Ha 1 - 3 Ha

1,285,113

41.37343209

1,726,411

41.21175244

387,073

0.412601575

655,637

21.1078348

698,448

16.67289311

1,135,157

1.210023863

3 - 5 Ha

278,772

8.974895135

418,375

9.987173926

1,057,044

1.126759086

5 - 10 Ha

296,760

9.554007864

448,301

10.70154779

2,074,296

2.211101775

10 - 15 Ha

139,434

4.488992898

207,793

4.960298373

1,684,686

1.795795878



26

15 - 20 Ha

82,834

2.666790293

123,779

2.954771202

1,421,171

1.514901307

20 - 50 Ha

204,708

6.590449662

303,589

7.24707773

6,430,547

6.854660034

50 - 100 Ha

88,661

2.854387017

135,352

3.231034276

6,080,559

6.48158932

100 - 200 Ha

41,774

1.344888545

68,788

1.642062074

5,645,474

6.017809216

200 - 500 Ha

20,288

0.653159831

36,563

0.872807984

6,055,280

6.454643098

500 - 1000 Ha

6,736

0.216861427

13,261

0.316557905

4,843,671

5.163125006

1000 – 2000 Ha

3,300

0.106241495

5,422

0.129430432

4,446,620

4.739887353

> 2000 Ha

2,114

0.068058945

3,041

0.07259276

52,551,200

56.01710249

TOTAL

3,106,131

100

4,189,123

100

93,812,778

100

Based on: Estadísticas Catastrales. Distribución rural por rango de superficie. Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi-IGAC (2013).

Colombia is one of the countries with a higher land concentration in the world. The Gini coefficient for land distribution in 1960 was 0.86. The same index in 2013 is 0.89. This means that, during the last few years, the concentration of this resource is increasing in a few hands. Farms smaller than 1 hectare occupy just 0.41% of all national productive land. In contrast, farms larger than 2000 hectare occupy more than 55% of the productive land. In Colombia, 50% of the land is being used for unprofitable livestock production; despite the fact that just 20% of all land has this type of use. In contrast, agricultural production occupies less than 8%, and the majority of it is for international markets. According to the Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural of Colombia, in 2011, land use was: for crops, 5.1 million hectares, of which 61% were for transitory cultivation, 31% for long-term crops and 8% for the forest. Agricultural production has risen to 24.9 million tonnes, 67% from long-term crops and 33% from transitory cultivation (MADR, 2012). Around the world, there are 4.2 billion hectares suitable for cultivation. 7% of this land is located in Africa while Latin America has 26%. Even though the majority of land suitable for cultivation is currently available in Africa, people are dying of hunger, as has been discussed. The biggest problem is related to land use; a high proportion of Africa's land is dedicated to the big agribusiness of biofuel production (Kachika, 2011). Just one example is in Mali: the ‘Société Sucrière de Markala’ (SoSuMAR) in 2010 received a loan from the African Development Bank (AfBD) for 65 million Euros to establish 14,132 ha of irrigated sugar cane for producing sugar and bioethanol (AfBD, 2010). However, according to the FAO (2012), in Mali, at least 1 million people go hungry and undernourished prevalence is 8%. 1.1.11 Genetically Modified Seeds (GMS) In the food security approach, GMS are the future of world crop production, but in the food sovereignty approach, seeds are part of the heritage of rural farmers and indigenous populations, which cannot be a commodity or commercialised. According to Barker (2007), in 1995, the WTO signed the ‘Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights’ (TRIPs). Essentially, TRIPs allow large foreign corporations to obtain a patent control of local production and distribution of seeds, plants and life forms. In practice, indigenous and rural populations must pay for using resources that belong to them. Some results related to TRIPs include: before putting the Agreement into practice, an average of eight patents were awarded per year for corn and soybeans; after TRIPs (1999-2001), 281 patents were granted each year for corn and soybeans.



27

Shiva et al. (2004) explain the importance of seeds as the first link in the food chain, the embodiment of life’s continuity and renewability. They are not just a resource for future plants but are also the storage place of culture, history, and heritage. Each year, the number of hectares cultivated with GMS increases (Figure 1.12). The soybean and corn are leading crops. These crops are used for human consumption, directly or indirectly through the animal meat. However, in the last few years, uses for biofuel production have been increasing as well. 80,00 70,00 60,00 50,00

Soybean

40,00

Corn Cotton

30,00

Rapeseed

20,00 10,00 0,00 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

FIGURE 1.12. Millions of hectares of genetically modified crops from 2003 – 2011. Source: ISAAA; USDA (2012). The USA is the leading country for this kind of crop with almost 70 billion hectares. Brazil is the second with 30 billion hectares; third is Argentina with 23, fourth is Canada with 10 and fifth is China with 5 million. South America has more than 50,000 ha of crops using GMS. 1.1.12 Climate change In the food security approach, climate change is a problem, but industrial agriculture must continue because it is the solution to world hunger. In the food sovereignty approach, agricultural food production is a solution for climate change. Nevertheless, industrial agriculture is related to global warming (Barker, 2007): • • • •

Industrial agriculture is responsible for one-third of emissions that contribute to global warming 25% of greenhouse carbon dioxide is produced by agricultural pesticides and chemicals, via deforestation and burning of biomass Most of the methane in the atmosphere comes from domestic ruminants, forest fires, wetland rice cultivation and waste products Fertiliser use accounts for 70% of nitrous oxides 1.2 The food sovereignty approach and rural development

As discussed in the first section, food sovereignty and rural development share similar issues. Furthermore, many people have confused food security and food sovereignty; there has been similar confusion between agricultural development and rural development.



28

Both agricultural development and food security perceive the rural sector mainly in an economic light. That is why the traditional and most extended idea related to economic development has transcended the rural sphere and many public policies, mostly in developing countries, have claimed that increasing agricultural production and the resulting economic growth are the way to achieve rural development. Agricultural development goals include improving crop production through new technologies and the modernization of crops and livestock to maximise production; the green revolution has been the most important way to achieve these goals. In other words, Food Security and Agricultural development share similar aims and methods. On the other hand, rural development, in addition to improving crop and livestock production, which are part of agrarian activities, mainly aims to improve the quality of life for all inhabitants of rural spaces, mainly rural farmers and indigenous populations. However, other issues, such as quality of rural education, improving rural infrastructure, electrification, human rights, food rights, water access, participation, biodiversity, social recognition, loan access, and so on, are important as well. (Pachón, 2010; Pachón, 2011). Food sovereignty and rural development have transcended productive issues; the scope of both is political, the aim is a new view for rural spaces where despite the importance of the economic activity, people who live there are more important. According to this, the rural sector, and hence rural inhabitants, peasants, and indigenous populations are important as individuals and not just as productive actors. Almost all policies and government profits are related to rural economic activity but fail to take into account the quality of life and other issues that are not necessarily in the productive atmosphere. Some years ago, the rural sector was understood to be multifunctional with many activities that can be done there. Therefore, it is vital to think about new forms for how Food Sovereignty and rural development can work together for achieving the final goal: improving the quality of life for rural inhabitants. Rural territories, perhaps not much as other sectors, are very complex, mainly in developing countries where industry has not been developed. The rural sector must comply with many additional functions to produce food, such as environmental balance, cultural conservancy, offerings of landscapes, water, and oxygen. In this scenario of multi-functionality and pluriactivity, peasants and indigenous populations must combine their traditions (Figure 1.13) to improve the quality of life.



29

Cultural patrimony Economic patrimony

Social patrimony Natural patrimony

Institutional patrimony Physical patrimony

Human patrimony

FIGURE 1.13. Peasantry patrimonies. Source: own elaboration The proposal for understanding complex rural territories must take into account the more important paradigms of rural development (rural livelihoods, new rurality, territorial rural development, human scale development, and the food sovereignty approach). As a result of the interaction of the key features of the mentioned paradigms, peasants and indigenous peoples in rural areas have been combining all their talents, abilities, faculties, capacities, endowments from their traditions to improve their quality of life. The above graphic shows the different identified traditions: cultural, economic, social, human, natural, physical and institutional. The sustainable rural livelihoods approach proposes that peasants have different assets, which are part of some capitals that normally have been used for survival. Even though this method takes into account many issues from rural areas, according to Scoones (2009), it has neglected other topics, such as institutions. Institutions are one of the core postulates from the territorial rural development approach, which highlights that, in rural territories, institutions would enable interactions between different actors inhabiting the area. The sustainable rural livelihoods approach emphasises, in an economical way, that rural inhabitants use their capitals and assets for survival. However, it is important to remark a crucial change in the understanding of this approach. This paper proposes understanding the capitals as patrimonies. This is not only a semantic difference; it moves away from a capitalist vision to another where are valued as part of the peasant heritage, and therefore can not be commercialised, by contrast, must be respected. On the other hand, the human scale development approach highlights that, as result of mixing different fundamental human needs, people seek to satisfy these requirements. Satisfiers must be synergic because when one of them is adequately pleased, help for the others satisfiers to fulfil all human needs is required. Some of the synergic satisfiers are represented by the principles of food sovereignty approach analysed in the previous sections, while the different examples, such as satisfier-violators or destroyers, pseudo-satisfiers or satisfier-inhibitor were described as hunger, overweight problems, undernourishment, obesity, and so on. Tt is necessary to take into account all of the discussion to locate satisfiers and food sovereignty principles as talents, abilities, faculties, capacities or endowments of the traditions. For instance, the principle of the production models has relations to all of the described traditions and can meet some human needs such as subsistence, protection, participation, identity and freedom.



30

Meanwhile, hunger, a consequence of the food security approach, has relations to all traditions but is a satisfier-inhibitor in connection with human needs, such as subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, creation, identity and freedom. 1.3 Conclusions The main conclusion of this paper is that the food security and food sovereignty approaches are not the same. Food security shares many points with agricultural development and the most important issue is to increase food production. Food sovereignty, on the other hand, shares many topics with rural development and the main goal for both is improving the quality of life for peasants, indigenous populations and, in general, rural inhabitants. Based on data from different countries, it is easy to understand that the food security approach has not been able to decrease hunger worldwide consistently. Instead, starvation, malnutrition and obesity are currently part of the new problems related to food consumption in many countries. The food security approach favours food export over national or local consumption. A result is an increased use of many resources, such as petroleum for transportation by ships. This explains how food prices are linked to petroleum prices. A result is that some countries, such as India, are a major food exporter, but have many inhabitants that are suffering from hunger each day. A clear relationship exists between the food sovereignty approach and rural development. The described principles clearly seek to improve the quality of life peasants and indigenous peoples. This relation was established through a new way of understanding rural development, where some interesting ideas from the latest paradigms of rural development are mixed. Even though this new approach has fascinating results, it is important to continue to try to constitute a deeper characterization of this new form to perceive, in a comprehensive way, the complexity of rural development. 1.4 References African Development Bank AfBD, 2010. http://allafrica.com/stories/201012080788.html; consulted: March 2013. Aistara, G. 2013. Food sovereignty: reconnecting food, nature, and community. J. Peasant Stud. 40(1), 314-318. Allen, P. 2013. Facing food security. J. Rural Stud. 29(1), 135-138. Altieri, M. and V. Toledo. 2011. The agroecological revolution in Latin America: rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. J. Peasant Stud. 38(3), 587-612. Barker, D. 2007. The rise and predictable fall of globalised industrial agriculture. The International Forum on Globalization (IFG), San Francisco, CA. Desmarais, A. 2008. The power of peasants: Reflections on the meanings of La Vía Campesina. J. Rural Stud. 24(1), 138-149. ICBF, Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar Familiar. 2010. Encuesta Nacional de la Situación Nutricional en Colombia ENSIN. Bogota. FAO 1996. Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action. World Food Summit, 13–17 November 1996. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.



31

FAO 2001. The state of food insecurity in the world 2001. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. FAO, WFP 2010. The state of food insecurity in the world. Addressing food insecurity in protracted crises. Rome, FAO. FAO, WFP and IFAD. 2012. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012. Economic growth is necessary but not sufficient to accelerate reduction of hunger and malnutrition. Rome, FAO. FAO. 2013 available in http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-fs/datos/es/#.Uo90UaV__eE consulted: March, 2013. Garay, L; Barbieri, F; Cardona, I 2010. Impactos del TLC con Estados Unidos sobre la economía campesina en Colombia. Editorial: ILSA - Instituto Latinoamericano de Servicios Legales. 178p. Global Hunger Index. 2012. http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ghi12.pdf; March, 2013. Gustavson, J. and K. Cederber, and U. Sonesson. 2011.Global food losses and food waste. Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK), Gothenburg, Sweden. http://statista.comAccessed on 15 March of 2013. Licensed by Humboldt University Berlin. http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/wfs-home/foodpricesindex/en/ Consulted March 2013. IGAC, Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi. 2013. Estadísticas catastrales. Distribución rural por rango de superficie. Bogota. Kachika, T. 2011. Land Grabbing in Africa. OXFAM 69p. Available in http://www.oxfamblogs.org/eastafrica/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Land-Grabbing-in-AfricaFinal.pdf; March, 2013. Kneafsey, M., E. Dowlerb, H. Lambie-Mumfordc, A. Inmand, and R. Colliere. 2013. Consumers and food security: Uncertain or empowered? J. Rural Stud. 29(1), 101-112. Laroche, L. and A. Postolle. 2013. Food sovereignty and agricultural trade policy commitments: How much leeway do West African nations have? Food Policy 38(1), 115-125. Maye, D. and J. Kirwan. 2013. Food security: a fractured consensus. J. Rural Stud. 29(1), 1-6. MADR, 2012. In: http://www.minagricultura.gov.co/archivos/Informe_RendicionCuentas2012.pdf; March 2013. Ortega, M. and M. Rivera. 2010. Indicadores internacionales de soberanía alimentaria. Nuevas herramientas para una nueva agricultura. Rev. Iberoamer. Econ. Ecol. 14, 53-77. Pachón, F. 2010. Rural development perception between farmers and policy executors in the Tequendama Province (Cundinamarca – Colombia). Agron. Colomb. 28(3), 543-551. Pachón, F. 2011. Desarrollo rural: superando al desarrollo agrícola. ColecciónTechné. Editorial Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota. Patel, R. 2009. Food sovereignty. J. Peasant Stud. 36(3), 663-706.



32

Penton, 2013. SN's Top 25 worldwide food retailers. In: http://supermarketnews.com/top-25global-food-retailers-2012; consulted: March 2013. Rosset, P. 2003. Food Sovereignty: Global rallying cry of farmer movements (online). Institute for Food and Development Policy Backgrounder 9(4), http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/47; consulted: November 2013. Scoones, I. 2009. Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. J. Peasant Stud. 36(1), 171196. Shiva, V., Rüesch, A. Jafri, R. Dechenne. 2004. Citizens vote for GMO-free food: Global citizen’s report on genetically modified crops and food. Navdanya; Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, New Delhi. United Nations 1975. Report of the World Food Conference, Rome. 5–16 November 1974. New York: United Nations.



33



34

CHAPTER 2

RURAL DEVELOPMENT THINKING, MOVING FROM GREEN REVOLUTION TO FOOD SOVEREIGNTY2

Fabio Alberto Pachón Ariza3 Wolfgang Bokelmann4 César Adrián Ramírez Miranda5

2

Published. Agronomia Colombiana 34(2), 267-276, 2016 Department of Rural Development, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia 4 Albrecht Daniel Thaer-Institut für Agrar- und Gartenbauwiss. Humboldt Universität zu Berlín, Berlin, Germany 5 Direction of Regional Centers, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Chapingo, Mexico 3



35

ABSTRACT Since the middle of the last century, several perspectives have addressed rural development from different viewpoints, and the technocratic matters have prevailed. Social topics have had a secondary role in these discussions. International financial institutions and prestigious research groups have positioned their ideas by these perspectives; however, none of them had taken the voices of the rural inhabitants into consideration. Nevertheless, a new perspective that covers the political concerns of the peasantry has been strengthening in recently. Four general approaches grouped all these perspectives. Firstly, the technocratic approach, which is based on productive matters. Secondly, the sociological approach, which is focused on social issues. Between them, we can find the socio-technocratic approach, which analyses productive problems in a social context, and finally the political approach that is focused on the rights of rural inhabitants. This paper aims to put forward food sovereignty from the perspective of the political approach to rural development. Food sovereignty gathers the thoughts of many stakeholders involved in rural matters, who had rarely been heard in both academic and policy discussions. It addressed tenets that bring concerns shared by many people worldwide to the debate. These concerns are focused on the likelihood to improve the standard of life and to accomplish the rights for rural inhabitants. Despite food sovereignty integrates important topics such as the recognition of the importance of the peasantry by the society, it is necessary to make a clear proposal about how to incorporate the consumers in its postulates. Keywords: Agricultural Policy, Food Policy, Household Income, Welfare 2.1 Introduction The rural development debate has evolved from a technocentric approach into a contemporary one focused on the rights. The technocentric approach focuses on production, whereas the modern approach focuses on people. The essence of the technocentric approach is to modernise agricultural production, throughout the green revolution. The essence of the contemporary approach is a social inclusion of rural inhabitants. The second half of the last century brought an important priority about modernisation in all the economic sectors. Within that concern, the rural sector was privileged due to the importance of food production. Nevertheless, besides food, the countryside should provide raw materials and labour for the modernisation of urban factories. The centre of many developing countries’ economies was the agricultural production. Hence, the target of the public policies was to create an environment where food production should increase. However, the perspectives of the technocentric approach intensified circumstances of deficiency and imbalance, mainly because its tendency was to concentrate opportunities and influence in those who held privileges such as land, money, and information. The environmental issues reached relevance at the end of the last century because of the obvious consequences of climate change. However, the perspectives focused on productive matters do not prioritise the alternatives to adapt to and alleviate climate change distress. Nevertheless, according to research and reports from international institutions, the conventional agriculture is responsible for at least a portion of greenhouse gases, water contamination or the depletion of forests around the world. On the other hand, the commencement of the current century aroused interest in equity and inclusion. The food sovereignty perspective leads the ongoing debate. Besides food production, which remains in the centre of the concerns, the discussion privileges ignored matters narrowly related to the quality of life of the rural inhabitants. Traditionally, the rights of the peasants and



36

indigenous peoples, fishers and shepherds, artisans and farm workers, rural women and children have been forgotten. However, food sovereignty locates the rights on the top of the arguments. The food sovereignty concept is elaborate and straightforward at the same time. It is straightforward since its emphasis is on topics considered appropriate to the idea of improving the condition of life for most of the rural inhabitants. However, it is complex because, even though the requests of the peasantry are reasonable, the process to fulfil these demands requires a significant involvement of both the state and the consumers. The food sovereignty perspective represents the political approach to rural development, which emerges in contrast to the technocratic and socio-technocratic approaches. Instead, it could be considered as complementary to the sociological approach because it focuses on people beyond agricultural production. However, some essential questions emerge in the analysis. Why can a concept such as food sovereignty bring together so many diverse people around the world? This paper attempts to put forward food sovereignty as the contemporary perspective to address rural development. To find out the reasons why food sovereignty should be considered as a new perspective to address rural development and to establish relationships and tensions between previous perspectives and food sovereignty, this paper proposes four different approaches to rural development: the technocratic, the sociological, the socio-technocratic, and the political. 2.2 The main approaches to rural development thinking To best understand the main rural development methods, this paper focuses on four different approaches Firstly, the technocratic, which takes into consideration five main perspectives: Modernisation of Agricultural Production, Structuralism – Cepalino and dependence theory -, Neoliberalism, and Neo-structuralism. Secondly, the sociological approach, which remarks at least four distinct notions: The Agrarian Question, Sustainable Rural Livelihoods, Community Capitals Framework, and Human Scale Development. Between them is the Socio-Technocratic approach with Rural Territorial Development and New Rurality perspectives. Finally, the political approach, which is based on The Food Sovereignty perspective, a proposal designed by an international peasant organisation called ‘La Vía Campesina.' Figure 2.1 shows all the perspectives earlier described, highlighting the moment they became necessary. These ideas appeared around a particular date. However, after some years they could gain strength and influence, initially into the academic deliberation and subsequently into development practices (Ellis & Biggs, 2001). The process of emergency, consolidation and decline of these perspectives corresponds to the governmental efforts to reach economic development. That explains the advent of a movement like ‘La Via Campesina’ as a result of the depletion of a development phase. The technocratic approach, represented mainly by the Modernisation of Agricultural Production and Neoliberalism perspectives, has predominantly influenced both public and private policies in almost every developing country worldwide since the middle of the past century. Instead, sociological, political, and socio-technocratic perspectives have appeared principally after the seventies and have mostly influenced development through private practices of NonGovernmental Organisations (NGOs), and perhaps university programmes. On the other hand, prominent academics, research staffs, and International Financial Institutions such as the United Nations, International Monetary Fund or World Bank have developed both technocratic and sociological approaches. ‘La Vía Campesina’, an international peasant organisation, developed the Food Sovereignty perspective.



37

FIGURE 2.1. Timeline of the main approaches to rural development thinking The perspectives will be described below, remarking their general characteristics and finding out the relationships among them, public policies, and development practices. It is important to note that they are not isolated, as Fig. 1 shows. On the contrary, they are narrowly interrelated and under a permanent influence each other. 2.2.1

Technocratic Approach

The technocratic approach has an evident tendency to an economistic worldview. The economistic tendency has an economic rationalism that tends to perceive the social life in the way to maximise the business (Polanyi, 1977; Hann, 2014), where everything is controlled just by a practical rationality, and beyond this tendency, nothing makes sense Polo Blanco, 2013). Hitherto, the technocratic approach shows at least four perspectives; some are complementary such as the Modernisation of Agricultural Production and Neoliberalism, while others are functional among them, for instance, Neoliberalism and Neostructuralism. 2.2.1.1 Modernisation of Agricultural Production Modernisation is a true example of the economistic tendency described by Polanyi. It aims to increase agricultural production and to maximise profits, but without a real concern about the social and environmental consequences of its practices. Since the end of the Second World War, modernisation has been the most influential and widespread perspective worldwide. In essence, modernisation claims that there are two types of agriculture: traditional and modern. Traditional agriculture is predominant mainly in developing countries, practised by peasants, and conceived as economically non-viable. It features small pieces of land, low production and incomes. In contrast, modern agriculture is located in developed countries, practised by medium and large agricultural entrepreneurs, and conceived

38

as economically viable. It is characterised by a high production and the use of external inputs (Hetherington, 2009). Modernisation seeks to transform traditional agriculture into a modern one, looking for the maximisation of capital accumulation and economic growth. Therefore, peasants use cutting edge technology (Oya, 2009). New technologies come from developed countries and should be spread to as many peasants as possible; initially through institutions specialised in productive matters with research centres, a Green Revolution pattern, Technology Transfer, and later through international cooperation. The following perspectives of the technocratic approach correspond to the transformations of the original modernisation perspective. These transformations aim for the adaptation to the changing times. However, they maintain the original idea of conversion into a modern agriculture with a production targeting the international market. 2.2.1.2 Structuralism Structuralism was the way in which the modernisation perspective turned into public policies in developing countries during the second half of the last century. In essence, Structuralism seeks to increase the agricultural production as the base of the industrialisation of urban areas in these countries. Structuralism has two tendencies: the Centre-Periphery Model and the Dependency Theory. Both tendencies agree that technology is crucial to reach development. The Centre-Periphery Model advocates for the industrialisation because the countries that hold industry and technology are in the Centre of the development, while those that do not hold such advances are in the Periphery. The Dependency Theory argues that the developing countries maintain such structural condition because they do not have access to technology due to the high cost. Hence, industrialisation and new technologies are the clues to achieve development. The Import Substitution Industrialisation (ISI) was the model of public policy proposed by the Structuralism as the way to overcome dependency. According to ISI, governments should lead the development process through strong institutions promoting industrialisation and protecting domestic production (Pachón-Ariza, 2011). In developing countries, increasing agricultural production in the absence of urban industries was the strategy to earn the revenue needed for industrialisation. In this context, the rural sector provided profits by the export of international markets agricultural commodities and transferred through taxes to the industrial expansion. Also, the agricultural production provided raw material and cheap food that allowed the nascent industry to reduce manufacturing costs, especially wages. Besides, the rural population was a big market for these novel products, and they provided a labour force characterised by low costs and non-tradition of an organisation as a working class. The results of Structuralism were that credits, technical assistance and subsidies fundamentally benefited commercial agriculture. Therefore, it was a way to strengthen modern agriculture. In some countries, the prices of goods produced by the industry from Central countries grew up faster than the national ones because of the inability to create a successful vertical integration to add value to the agricultural production through the urban industry. As a consequence, the technological dependency increased and so did the costs of patents and industrial rights. Developing countries increased their external debts to support the model, which consequently brought the implementation of the Neoliberal perspective at the beginning of the eighties (Borras Jr, 2009).



39

2.2.1.3 Neoliberalism Neoliberalism is a new strategy of the economistic tendency to strengthen modern agriculture, especially from developed countries, via the control of the food market by international food and beverage companies through the globalisation. The main difference between previous perspectives and Neoliberalism is the activism of the governments in the control of the development process. Neoliberalism was implemented through the Structured Adjustment Programme. As a result of these measures, the market, instead of the governments, must regulate the flow of commodities and goods in a scheme of free interchange among countries. That structure allows the intervention of the market by international food companies to manage the prices according to their convenience. The principles of the Structured Adjustment Programme that affected the rural sector directly were mainly the privatisation of public companies related to rural issues, which from that moment on would provide modern agriculture with technical assistance, credit, and access to the market because it can pay for private services. Besides other micro and macroeconomic measures, the rural sector was disturbed because of the elimination of subsidies and border taxes, deregulation of the banking industry and free interest rates (Brass, 2002; Kay, 2009). According to Kay (2005), during Neoliberalism, there are no rural development policies, just some specific actions. However, some consequences of the Neoliberal policies on the rural sector could be characterised. For instance, the increase in unemployment, the growth of monoculture for the international market, the decrease in agricultural production for domestic consumption, and the rise of rural poverty in developing countries. 2.2.1.4 Neostructuralism The Neostructuralism perspective is the proposal to adjust public policies to reduce the effects of neoliberalism and globalisation. Its concerns about rural equity and reduction of poverty ignored the small farmers and again allowed the strengthening of modern agriculture. Neostructuralism advocates for the role of the market but with appropriate interventions by governments. Developing countries must continue opening their economies to foreign investment. Nevertheless, governments ought to create clear rules for these investments. The goal of this regulation created conditions for the competitiveness of domestic agricultural production represented by modern agriculture. It attempts to locate clusters in which local agriculture could be competitive in the global market and modify the public policies to reinforce such clusters. Policies must guarantee topics such as training, technology, credits, subsidies, and access to markets (Kay, 2009). However, these policies left out those rural stakeholders that lack features to be competitive and were focused on modern agriculture. In theory, Neostructuralism seeks the reduction of the differences between all rural actors, but its focus on international markets, instead of strengthening the local commerce, in the end, resulted in the rise of rural poverty and inequality. An obvious example of such kind of policies is the Free Trade Agreements among countries with high differences such as those from Latin America and the United States or the European Union. To sum up, the technocratic approach, in an economistic tendency, has looked for the transformation from traditional agriculture to a modern one. Nonetheless, after more than fifty years of models and policies trying to look for this transformation, the traditional agriculture survives in developing countries producing food for local consumption.



40

2.2.2

Sociological Approach

The sociological approach focuses on people instead of their economic activities. The perspectives of the sociological approach tackle social concerns. In contrast to the technocratic approach, it focuses on cultural and ecological issues. The goal of the sociological approach is to put the rural population in the first place (Chambers, 1983), dealing with traditions, mores, and behaviours. Initially, it is important to mention a perspective that the academic world has not got over, the ‘Agrarian Question’. It argues about the role of the peasantry in the processes of economic transformation (Brass, 2002). The 'Agrarian Question' discusses, on the one hand, the survival of the peasantry based on work relationships such as ‘family labour,' sometimes defined as selfexploitation. Another reason for the survival of the peasantry is because household production aims to meet the needs instead of accumulating. On the other hand, some authors debate that the peasantry will disappear because their production is economically unviable, and hence they will become proletarians (Bernstein, 2009). This discussion results relevant because nowadays the perception about the peasantry has been changing, and its importance has been growing up, even in some international institutions and in the academic world. Equally, it is important to remark on the thoughts of García Nossa. His analysis established the backwards condition of rural areas, as a structural problem that affects the economic, political, and cultural environments, especially in Latin America. According to García, to overcome that condition, a change in the agrarian structure such as land tenancy, power structure, and requirements for a real participation of the peasantry was necessary (García, 1972). 2.2.2.1 Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Essentially Sustainable Rural Livelihoods defines livelihood as a net that involves people and their ways of living (food, earnings, and assets). It discusses three main topics: capabilities, equity, and sustainability. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods considers people’s capabilities as both, an end goal and a means. As an end goal, livelihoods offer support to upgrade the performance capabilities. As a means, capabilities provide a way of living. Equity as an end goal is the fair access to available livelihoods. As a means, equity is fair access to resources to obtain ways of living. Sustainability as an end goal is an adequate handling of resources to ensure the future availability. As a means, sustainability affords conditions to satisfy next generations (Chambers & Conway, 1992). Thus, the combination of capabilities, equity, and sustainability creates a virtuous circle to improve livelihoods. Indeed, capabilities, equity, and sustainability operate for the rural areas as well. In a rural scenario, livelihoods include several activities among other things: cropping and processing, hunting, fishing, artisanal works, communal work, and providing services. Bebbington (1999) also proposes an interesting analysis of the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods. He shows a scheme of five capitals (Natural, Financial, Human, Physical and Social), which the peasantry mix to improve their livelihoods. However, Scoones (2009) remarks about the issue that Sustainable Rural Livelihoods ignores some topics. For instance, suggests things such as politics and power, lack of arrangement with globalisation, the likelihood to cover issues about agrarian change and related matters. Finally, remarks a lack of long-term vision, although sustainability belongs to the initial concept. 2.2.2.2 Community Capitals Framework Community Capitals Framework introduces a new method to comprehend the achievements at a community level. Community Capitals are defined as everything that a community has, and potentially could be used to produce new resources for its welfare.



41

The framework organises seven types of capitals of the community. Natural capital refers in general to the environment. Cultural capital emphasises on traditions and habits. Human Capital focuses on knowledge. Social Capital stresses on networks and relationships. Political capital underlines topics related to power matters. Built Capital deals with subjects such as systems and utilities, for instance, water or health systems. Financial Capital focuses on topics related to income. In every of these seven capitals, the community holds stocks, which could sink, reserve, use, or put with the purpose of increasing them and getting benefits for its members (Flora, Flora, & Gasteyer, 2003). Interestingly, the framework defines capital as a resource that is invested, and as a result of this inversion, more capital is generated. The assets are those able to create additional assets, which means capitals (Emery & Flora, 2006). However, it is unknown if those resources that are lost during the investment process or that do not produce more resources would be considered as capital. The Community Capital Framework and Sustainable Rural Livelihoods perspectives are complementary (Gutierrez-Montes, Emery, & Fernandez-Baca, 2009). While community Capitals cover the concept of the society as a whole, Sustainable Rural Livelihoods emphasises on individuals. The framework comments on seven capitals, which means more issues are enclosed in the discussion. Rural Livelihoods notes just five capitals, perhaps an additional topic to those mentioned by Scoones (2009) about the subjects ignored by the perspective. Both perspectives, Community Capitals and Sustainable Rural Livelihoods, highlight on the concept of capitals. Nevertheless, those perspectives belong to the sociological approach, when the idea of capitals is integrated to their postulates, they link the discussion to the market and economic sphere. However, in rural development matters, it would be critical to find alternative scopes to add unexploited opportunities to the discussion. 2.2.2.3 Human Scale Development Human Scale Development seeks to satisfy the Fundamental Human Needs through the creation of increasing levels of self-reliance and articulation of humans with the environment and technology, the globalisation and local processes, individuality and community. Indeed, the focus is on people because the satisfaction of the fundamental human needs is done based on people's involvement, privileging both autonomy and diversity. It aims to transform people perceived as an object, into people understood as an actor of the development. The participatory democracy constructed from the bottom up stimulates real solutions for real problems, which will satisfy Fundamental Human Needs (Max-Neef, Elizalde, & Hopenhayn, 1994). The Human Scale Development perspective emphasises in three milestones. Firstly, institutions and persons. They have traditionally used a type of language that strongly links development with commercial growing. Hence, people are more concerned with material goods instead of other topics such as the quality of life (Pachón-Ariza & Molina, (Eds.) 2014). Secondly, Human Scale Development differentiates ‘wealth and poverties’ according to how the societies satisfy their Fundamental Human Needs. Finally, it clarifies the confusion between needs and satisfiers. Commonly, needs are understood as infinite and changing over time and culture. Indeed, needs are multiple and interdependent, for that reason they conform a net where they interact Needs are finite, few and classifiable. Simultaneity, complementarity, and trade-offs characterise the process to satisfy human needs. Precisely, these are the main differences with the proposal of Abraham Maslow in his Theory of Human Motivation (Max-Neef et al., 1994). According to Human Scale Development, needs could be organised into two categories: Existential and Axiological. The matrix of Fundamental Human Needs is the result of mixing the needs of both categories. On one side of the matrix, Existential Needs are located: being, having, doing, and interacting. On the other hand, Axiological Needs such us subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, leisure, creation, identity, and freedom are located. Satisfiers are the way in which Existential Needs meet Axiological Needs. For



42

example, what people must do to survive, understand, or participate (Max-Neef et al., 1994). 2.2.3

Socio-Technocratic Approach

The socio-technocratic approach focuses on the economic activities of rural inhabitants but includes some social concerns such as territory and the consequences of policies on rural families. Even though social issues are included in the discussion, the predominance of topics such as competitiveness or productive advantages to accessing the markets preserves a tight relationship with the economistic tendency. Two perspectives were included in the current approach. Both of them are quite recent in the academic and political discussion. However, the Rural Territorial Development perspective is the most significant and is being applied mainly in Latin America nowadays. 2.2.3.1 Rural Territorial Development (RTD) The centre of RTD is the territory. The best understanding of territories associates them with those spaces that hold identity, and in this way, development thoughts are built collectively. Besides, RTD understands the rural issue in a comprehensive way. It overcomes productive topics because of its main milestones, territory and rurality, goes beyond sectoral approaches that traditionally give priority to technocratic and productive tendencies. RTD is a process of both institutional and productive transformations that seeks poverty alleviation and strengthens territorial identities. Productive Transformation aims to link territories and markets in a sustainable and competitive way. Institutional transformation pursues agreements among stakeholders involved in governance arrangements. These agreements aim to create opportunities to participate in both economic and political development and then avoid exclusions from the benefits of the productive transformation (Bebbington, 1999; Schejtman & Berdegué, 2003). Due that RTD is a recent proposal, it has lately started to influence practices mainly through NGOs. Some authors have added interesting topics to enhance RDT's principles. Some of the items proposed are related to social issues, which will be useful to improve the proposal. For instance, Molina (2010) remarks five keys: Firstly, territorial planning as an option to solve land use conflicts and enhance livelihood strategies by stakeholders. Secondly, rural poverty and local capabilities understood as the linkage between stakeholders' skills to markets, seeking to increase profits. Thirdly, land tenure and agrarian structure. Inequalities in tenancy and land use avoid that territories express all their potentials. Indeed, this issue, common in developing countries, requires political leadership to distribute the resources equitably. The fourth key is a connection between the local and national dimensions. It implies to overcome divergences between sectoral policies and territorial requirements. The last key is contextual and disciplinary education. It remarks the role of the universities in training professionals with a territorial profile. 2.2.3.2. New Rurality The base of the New Rurality perspective is the diversification of incomes in rural families. Many households have sought to vary to increase income, doing diverse activities simultaneously with agriculture. These activities are mainly handicrafts and services. However, other ways to increase income are remittances from migrants (Kay, 2009). Mexico is the best example of this issue. In this country, most of the rural incomes are based, direct or indirectly, on remittances from migrants in The United States. The revenue diversification phenomenon has demonstrated something that has always occurred: multifunctionality and pluriactivity of rural areas. Multifunctionality means that besides



43

agricultural production, the rural area provides several goods and services to the society (Silva Pérez, 2010). Essentially it is an attribute of the agriculture and rural spaces. On the other hand, pluriactivity means coupling with non-agricultural activities (Van der Ploeg, Jingzhong, & Schneider, 2012), and it is an attribute of the peasantry production. Bryceson, Kay, Mooij, & Barkin (2004) added to this discussion; there is the issue of the ‘deagrarianization’ of the rural sector. It states that some rural areas are losing their agricultural and productive identity, sometimes due to the different activities held there; in other words, due to the pluriactivity. Despite the 'deagrarianization' argument, the result has been the reassessment of the rural area meaning. Even though the New Rurality perspective offers interesting questions about the rural world, some authors argue that those are just the consequences of the implementation of the modernisation, neoliberalism and globalisation policies. Notwithstanding, they explain that the New Rurality perspective explores issues about rural sector such as participation, local development, empowerment, entrepreneurship, organic agriculture, gender topics, or fair trade. However, it does not offer concrete paths to reach its goals, or more important, does not define the role of governments in this achievement (Kay, 2005). Besides, Ramírez-Miranda (2014) explains the New Rurality perspective as the neoliberal rurality because it typifies the consequences of the implementation of neoliberal policies in rural areas. For instance, while governments were implementing neoliberal policies, they were dismantling public institutions for rural matters at the same time. While governments were opening the national economy to globalisation and were seeking to establish production for the international market, the rural sector was searching for the diversification of activities. It implied the weakening of the peasant economy and the decrease in food production for the national market. Indeed, some of the consequences of the current neoliberal policies for rural areas are firstly a massive migration and hence an evident ageing of households. Migration involves firstly, the increasing of remittances and changes in productive activities. Equally, migration generates difficulties to get labour force because it is not available, or expensive. Secondly, the increase of monoculture and livestock production mainly for external markets, because these activities require fewer labourers and their economic risk be less than crop production. Thirdly, conflicts on water and land use, because some areas close to the cities are being used on other issues such as relaxing or conventional tourism instead of food production. In other cases, some activities such as mining have triggered intensive environmental and social problems. 2.2.4

Political Approach

The Political approach concentrates on rights. Essentially the political approach debates the importance for all the rural inhabitants to have access to every privilege as the urban population. However, these rights go beyond the access to freedom, autonomy, and independence. They refer to an acknowledgement of the importance of the rural areas, the peasantry, and the food by all the society. The rights have recently reached the centre of the debate on rural development because the other approaches have been predominant in both the academic and political discussion. Nevertheless, their influence on public policies has been inconspicuous. International Institutions or research staffs have proposed the rural development perspectives previously described. On the other hand, the current perspective is led by an international peasant organisation: ‘La Vía Campesina.’ Initially, it is important to remark that the advent of La Vía Campesina has brought the discussion about the survival of the peasantry back. That discussion had been forgotten in both, the academic and political debate throughout the Neoliberal policies. Another interesting fact is that the English word ‘Peasant’ has gradually been changed in the international literature by the Spanish word ‘Campesino’ (Altieri & Toledo, 2011; Desmarais, 2002; Holt-Giménez & Altieri, 2013; Patel, 2009; Rosset, 2003). That is



44

exceptional because both words have been used in an offensive way to designate somebody who is unable to act appropriately in social circumstances, as well as being inadequately educated, and poor. La Vía Campesina as an international movement includes many worldwide organisations of peasants, indigenous people, artisans, landless people, pastoralists, fisherfolks, farm workers, urban consumers, and environmental organisations from all the Continents. Regardless the skin colour, religion or political beliefs of its members, La Vía Campesina has become the opportunity to integrate a set of demands in a global scenario (Desmarais, 2002). Besides, the most important aspect is that the Food Sovereignty perspective has strengthened a collective identity and common places to debate refreshing ideas. 2.2.4.1 Food Sovereignty The Food Sovereignty started at the beginning of the nineties based primarily on a struggle against Neoliberal policies, the unfair market, and the global corporate agrifood system (Pachón-Ariza, 2013). In 2007 through the Declaration of Nyéléni on Food Sovereignty, the organisation presented its postulates. Nevertheless, it is important to note that this Declaration resulted from years of gathering thoughts and meanings. Besides, Martinez-Alier (2011) suggests that even though it is a perspective from non-common circles, it has been relevant in the academic world, and probably soon in public policies. Before a deep analysis, it is important to make a significant differentiation between Food Sovereignty and Food Security. The Food Security concept has impacted policies because a powerful institution such as The Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) is behind it. According to (Cumbre de la Alimentacion, 1996), Food Security means that from an individual to a global level, every person should always have both physical and economic access to satisfactory, safe, and nutritious food to meet their nutritional requirements and food preferences for a dynamic and healthy life. This statement would be unquestionable but omits some fundamental issues. For instance, topics such as where food is produced, who is in the production process, modes of production, trade practices, environmental consequences of production, or subsidy schemes in developed countries are not considered. However, perhaps the most important issue is if people that produce food will consume it or must sell all the production to achieve their livelihoods. Indeed, Food Sovereignty takes such matters into consideration. According to the Declaration of Nyéléni, it is defined as: “the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their food and agriculture systems. It puts those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies rather than the demands of markets and corporations. It defends the interests and inclusion of the next generation. It offers a strategy to resist and dismantle the current corporate trade and food regime, and directions for food, farming, pastoral and fisheries systems determined by local producers. Food sovereignty prioritises local and national economies and markets and empowers peasant and family farmer-driven agriculture, artisanal fishing, pastoralist-led grazing, and food production, distribution and consumption based on environmental, social and economic sustainability. Food sovereignty promotes transparent trade that guarantees just income to all peoples and the rights of consumers to control their food and nutrition. It ensures that the rights to use and manage our lands, territories, waters, seeds, livestock and biodiversity are in the hands of those of us who produce food. Food Sovereignty implies new social relations free of oppression and inequality between men and women, peoples, racial groups, social classes and generations” (“Declaration of Nyeleni,” 2007:1). Food Sovereignty accentuates several topics, but the most important one is its emphasis on



45

‘rights’. That means that it is legal, fair and morally allowed that the peasantry decides the best way to carry out their activities, especially cropping without external pressures such us market conditions, a particular type of inputs, monoculture practices, consumption behaviours, or displacement of their lands. It is true that in many places several peasants, farmers, and indigenous people are expelled from their lands because of violence and discriminatory policies, or when governments allow that transnational food companies flood emerging economies with food at low prices due to subsidised production. Another interesting issue in that discussion is the food wasted worldwide. Sometimes market requirements pursue the creation of consumption habits, which have resulted in a significant food loss, mainly in developed countries (Martínez Z., Menacho P., & Pachón-Ariza, 2014). Ortega Cerdà & Rivera Ferré (2010), describe five Principles of Food Sovereignty. Firstly, the access to resources. From the individual to the communal level, the peasantry can take control of land, seeds, credits, water and infrastructure. Those resources must be used in an ecological way, emphasising gender equality. Secondly, the modes of production. It seeks to recover and propagate ancestral production models, especially avoiding external dependencies. The third is the transformation and commercialisation. It motivates the producers themselves to add value to their products and commercialise them in local markets avoiding intermediaries as much as possible. The fourth principle is related to food consumption. That is the key issue in food sovereignty and aims the right of the producers, their families, and neighbours to consume their products. Finally, the agricultural policies. Peasants have the possibility to interfere in policies that could affect their rights. Besides these principles, according to the Declaration of Nyeleni (2007), the Food Sovereignty perspective aims that peasants live with dignity, to preserve natural resources, and appreciate women’s role in rural areas. It protects and respects traditional knowledge, culture, and language. It defends the territories against external actions and promotes that peasants decide themselves their future. One of the central concerns of Food Sovereignty is the right to have access to seeds. Seeds are the basis of agriculture and represent new lives, future, and renovation. Seeds, beyond the capability to generate new plants, constitute the arsenal of culture and the reference framework for the generations to come. Seeds conserve part of the history. Every moment that seeds are lost, this entire heritage is lost as well. For this reason, seeds are crucial for Food Sovereignty. 2.3 Rural development from the food sovereignty point of view Hitherto, the important perspectives of rural development have been highlighted, including food sovereignty as a part of the political approach. Against this background, the final discussion will illustrate the main reasons why the current paper recognises food sovereignty as the contemporary rural development perspective. In plain words, rural development can be understood as the stage where all rural residents get a standard of living that allows them to accomplish all their rights as human beings. The key topics of rural development are the standard of life and the rights of people. Both topics are synergic, in other words, its combination makes the process to reach rural development more efficient. On the one hand, the standard of life includes at least three backgrounds: support, conservation and inclusion. The support context suggests, for instance, matters such as housing, jobs and incomes; the conservationist context, for example, is concerned about water, land or air. The inclusion context comprises, among others, welfare, health and equity. The standard of life must be different in both, the individual and the collective levels including all rural inhabitants, making a particular emphasis in those who have seen their efforts to achieve their rights frustrated.



46

On the other hand, rights can be organised in the same three backgrounds: support, conservation and inclusion. The support rights include having their property separated or in cooperation with others, keeping their belongings, having freedom to choose a job or occupation with a fair payment that ensures the coverage of basic needs such as food, clothing, housing and medical care for people and their families. Similarly, support means getting social protection in cases of unemployment. The conservationist rights are based on the idea of common goods. These goods must be accessible for everyone everywhere, including the rural areas. The conservationist rights refer especially to the conventions of the human behaviour to preserve an adequate environment available for all people, including the next generations and respect all the living creatures. The inclusion rights essentially are a big tent where rights such as dignity, freedom of speech, movement, security, recognition and equality, of peaceful assembly and association, as well as the freedom to join a trade union, leisure, education, special care and assistance for the motherhood, and childhood are present. Inclusive rights must avoid discrimination, torture, exile or racism; and promote respect and participation in the cultural life according to their beliefs for all the rural inhabitants. The Food sovereignty perspective takes these concerns into consideration but is fenced off to food as the burning question. Perhaps other topics are highlighted but are not the core of the perspective. In other words, the subjects underlined in the definition of rural development belong to the ideas of the food sovereignty perspective but are described regarding the importance of food. 2.3.1

Supportive issues

About the debate on supportive problems, food sovereignty proposes that access to markets in a fair way would improve those topics. According to food sovereignty, the peasants should have the right to commercialise their products in a transparent structure. The practices that distort o deform the market looking for the benefit of a few stakeholders must be forbidden. With an unbiased access to the market, peasants will gain their wages and hence hold enough economic resources. Unfortunately, a transparent structure of markets is uncommon in the current global value chain as Asche, Bellemare, Roheim, Smith, & Tveteras (2015) describe in the case of seafood. It is important to remark that the food sovereignty perspective does not emphasise access to assets. Its emphasis is on the right of the peasantry to commercialise in fair trade. In it, the consumer pays a fair price for the food and, the reward is adequate according to the labour and risks that the peasant assumes throughout all the production process. An adequate payment, beyond the incomes, is inspired by peasant feelings such as social involvement, self-esteem, confidence and pride, besides an acknowledgement by the society about the prominence of the peasantry. Parrado & Molina (2014) describe the experience of the programme ‘Mercados Campesinos’ in the central region of Colombia. Regularly, peasants surrounding Bogotá, the capital city of Colombia, gather their production, and they commercialise it in special places such as parks or squares. Besides the fair price that consumers are willing to pay for these products, a kind of friendship between peasants and consumers has been created. In some cases, consumers go directly to the farm with the purpose of visiting and identifying the production process. As a result, consumers realise that the price is correct, and the peasant feels that the society values his work. An adequate payment can allow peasants to have access to material assets, which could influence the improvement of the standard of living and accomplishment of their rights. However, just the access to material assets cannot guarantee by itself the achievement of the rights and the enhancement of the standard of living. Material assets allow the satisfaction of some particular needs, which are undoubtedly important for people. Nevertheless, the feelings created by the acknowledgement and engagements of the society are those that indeed allow improving the standard of living and the accomplishment of the peasants’ rights.



47

Some of the supportive issues described as essential by the food sovereignty perspective are land, seeds, and infrastructure. Certainly, the peasantry must have an adequate infrastructure available to improve the standard of living and the accomplishment of their rights. Infrastructure such as housing, schools, medical centres, roads, bridges, electricity, clean water, or places for recreation is a sine qua non-condition, in conjunction with the social engagement, to reach rural development. 2.3.2

Conservative issues

The conservative issues discussed by food sovereignty are fundamentally related both to access to resources and the food production modes. The food production models go together with the protection of the environmental resources and the access to them. Food sovereignty argues that most of the ancestral ways of food production were environmentally friendly, because its priority was the integrated natural resources management, privileging conservation of water, land, and biodiversity. Many of the traditional food production performed by the peasantry, instead of the modern and intensive food production, uses resources in a sustainable manner. Nonetheless, some private practices do not hold this feature. In many developing countries, customs such as burning tires to get the energy for post-harvest processes generates enormous environmental impact. That is why an analysis of the real influence of much of these practices must be done to identify positive and adverse effects on the environment, but especially for the purpose to recover the traditional knowledge and share it with the other communities. According to food sovereignty, seeds are the most valuable treasure that the peasantry holds. Seeds embody the base for the new life and are the main inheritance that the peasantry and humanity have to establish strong bonds with their territories. All societies have built their history through food produced by seeds; we have evolved across the times and have consolidated most of the things we all have today. However, despite the cutting edge technology, food has not been replaced. The traditions of all societies, even the most industrialised, are strongly related to food, which becomes one of the central axes. Besides the industrialisation level, economic situation, or religious beliefs, food remains inside the legacies of societies. For that reason, seeds and food become the most efficient way to keep traditions and spread culture for new generations. 2.3.3

Inclusive issues

Inclusive matters in food sovereignty are strongly related to political issues, especially the agrarian policy. In it, the core is the accomplishment of the human rights for all rural inhabitants, in particular for the peasantry. A policy that pursues a fundamental reform process that overcomes the idea of just the redistribution of land, together with the previously discussed matters, belongs to the features of the rural development debate. It does not mean that the land and its fair distribution have lost its relevance in the agrarian question, quite the opposite. Besides the land, the peasantry requires much more subjects that allow them to reach rural development. Some examples of these requirements are the availability of a technical assistance according to their interests and needs, clean water, loans, good markets, information, insurances, schools, medical services, leisure, housing, and transportation. The idea of a fundamental reform that contains all the previous concerns and others will correspond to a proposal of a rural reform for the rural development. However, as it was discussed previously, the primary feature of this reform is the social acknowledgement and overcoming the old idea that the peasants are poorly educated people, resistant to the change or difficult to organise. The implementation of this policy based on a rural reform requires a new kind of institutions. Traditional institutions based on the notion of the economistic tendency, cannot succeed in that aim. Historically, the goals of the institutions can change. However, if people keep doing their duties, in the same way, the results would persist without alteration. A new mind, innovative



48

performances, integrative practices and perhaps young people concerned about these matters should belong to the new institutions for rural development. This means that working in the countryside should become an attractive occupation for young enthusiasts. For that reason, the motivations, including wages for the employees, should be convenient to capture the best people. Food sovereignty strongly remarks the role of women as the leaders of the development processes. Women, according to the food sovereignty beliefs, are the holders of the traditions, which share with children and their families through education. For that reason, the role of women is crucial in preserving the heritages for new generations. Women must be able to decide the best way to make things in the household and must have the likelihood to make decisions over their bodies. In the same way, food sovereignty remarks the importance of children for the rurality. Children must remain in the schools, instead of working in the plots. They must receive a basic education that promotes staying in rural areas instead of migrating to urban environments. Food sovereignty understands children as the present and, at the same time, the future of the rurality. These three issues: support, conservation, and inclusion are intertwined in the food sovereignty perspective. Perhaps a perfect differentiation among them is muddled. Quite the opposite, they are intimately related and act in a synergistic way insofar as each one potentiates the others in a virtuous circle, in which the improvement of the standard of living and the accomplishment of the rights for all the rural inhabitants allow rural development. 2.4 Conclusions The main finding of the discussion is the answer to the question at the beginning of the paper. Why can a concept such as food sovereignty bring together so many diverse people around the world? Perhaps because of the consequences of the implementation of perspectives of the technocratic approach. That application takes shape in public policies, which handle unified criteria for much of the peasantry around the world. A possible explanation could remain in the fact that most of the people that feel recognised by the food sovereignty perspective are suffering similar problems. That situation is independent of the location of these people. A common denominator in all these places is the implemented policies. Much of these policies follow an economistic tendency, which has evolved from protection to globalisation, have determined that similar situations remain parallel worldwide obviously with certain nuances according to the realities of the continents, countries and territories. It is logical that when an alternative proposal that can join the needs of a large social group emerges, most of its members feel identified with it. It happens because the technocratic and socio-technocratic approaches almost always are trying to unify the rural diversities into just one reality. On the other hand, the sociological approach takes into consideration most of the diversities of the countryside and their inhabitants. Nevertheless, the political approach embodied in the food sovereignty perspective constructs a general framework characterised mainly by the particularities, reality, and history of each territory. Food sovereignty constructs a proposal based on the rights of rural inhabitants beyond their production. Food sovereignty puts food in a different context, not as a commodity, but as the axis of the society that has been built around it, by social groups with different customs but with the same problems. The interdependence between peasants and consumers is crucial for the social acknowledgement of the peasantry. The consumers, beyond a fair pay for food, must offer the place the peasantry deserves in the society. When this happens, the consumers will have the right to decide the kind of food that best suits according to their viewpoints, avoiding imposed food. That means the consumers belong to the food sovereignty perspective as well, and they play a significant role in it. However, the perspective is imprecise about how the consumers can be enrolled in the achievement of the food sovereignty proposal in a more active way. That is



49

precisely a new step that La Vía Campesina and all its partners must improve. 2.5 References Altieri, M. A., & Toledo, V. M. (2011). The agroecological revolution in Latin America: rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(3), 587–612. http://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2011.582947 Asche, F., Bellemare, M. F., Roheim, C., Smith, M. D., & Tveteras, S. (2015). Fair Enough? Food Security and the International Trade of Seafood. World Development, 67, 151–160. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.10.013 Bebbington, A. (1999). Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for Analyzing Peasant Viability, Rural Livelihoods and Poverty. World Development, 27(12), 2021–2044. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00104-7 Bernstein, H. (2009). V.I. Lenin and A.V. Chayanov: looking back, looking forward. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 55–81. http://doi.org/10.1080/03066150902820289 Borras Jr, S. M. (2009). Agrarian change and peasant studies: changes, continuities and challenges–an introduction. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 5–31. Brass, T. (2002). Latin American peasants - new paradigms for old? The Journal of Peasant Studies, 29(3-4), 1–40. http://doi.org/10.1080/03066150412331311019c Bryceson, D., Kay, C., Mooij, J., & Barkin, D. (2004). Disappearing peasantries: rural labour in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Latin American Research Review, 39(3), 281. Chambers, R. (1983). Rural development: Putting the last first. Routledge. Chambers, R., & Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. Institute of Development Studies (UK). Cumbre de la Alimentacion. (1996). FAO. Roma, Noviembre. Declaration of Nyeleni. (2007). Chain Reaction, (100). Desmarais, A.-A. (2002). PEASANTS SPEAK - The Vía Campesina: Consolidating an International Peasant and Farm Movement. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 29(2), 91–124. http://doi.org/10.1080/714003943 Ellis, F., & Biggs, S. (2001). Evolving Themes in Rural Development 1950s-2000s. Development Policy Review, 19(4), 448. Emery, M., & Flora, C. (2006). Spiraling-Up: Mapping Community Transformation with Community Capitals Framework. Community Development, 37(1), 19–35. http://doi.org/10.1080/15575330609490152 Flora, C. B., Flora, J., & Gasteyer, S. (2003). Rural Communities: Legacy and Change, 448. García, A. (1972). Atraso y Dependencia en América Latina. Editorial El Anteo, Buenos Aires. Gutierrez-Montes, I., Emery, M., & Fernandez-Baca, E. (2009). The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach and the Community Capitals Framework: The Importance of System-Level



50

Approaches to Community Change Efforts. Community Development, 40(2), 106–113. http://doi.org/10.1080/15575330903011785 Hann, C. (2014). The economistic fallacy and forms of integration under and after socialism. Economy and Society, 43(4), 626–649. http://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2014.898824 Hetherington, K. (2009). The strategic incoherence of development: marketing expertise in the World Development Report. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(3), 653–661. http://doi.org/10.1080/03066150903143053 Holt-Giménez, E., & Altieri, M. A. (2013). Agroecology, food sovereignty, and the new green revolution. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 37(1), 90–102. Kay. (2005). Enfoques sobre el Desarrollo Rural en América Latina y Europa desde Mediados del Siglo Veinte. Institute of Social Studies de La Haya. Kay, C. (2009). Development strategies and rural development: exploring synergies, eradicating poverty. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 103–137. http://doi.org/10.1080/03066150902820339 Martinez-Alier, J. (2011). The EROI of agriculture and its use by the Via Campesina. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(1), 145–160. http://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2010.538582 Martínez Z., N., Menacho P., Z., & Pachón-Ariza, F. (2014). Food loss in a hungry world, a problem? Agronomía Colombiana, 32, 283–293. Max-Neef, M. A., Elizalde, A., & Hopenhayn, M. (1994). Desarrollo a escala humana: conceptos, aplicaciones y algunas reflexiones (Vol. 66). Icaria Editorial. Molina, J. P. (2010). Keys for rural territorial development. Agronomía Colombiana, 28(3), 421–427. Ortega Cerdà, M., & Rivera Ferré, M. G. (2010). Indicadores internacionales de Soberanía Alimentaria: Nuevas herramientas para una nueva agricultura. Revista Iberoamericana de Economía Ecológica ( REVIBEC ), 14, 77. Oya, C. (2009). The World Development Report 2008: inconsistencies, silences, and the myth of “win-win” scenarios. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(3), 593–601. http://doi.org/10.1080/03066150903142949 Pachón-Ariza, F. (2011). Desarrollo rural: superando al desarrollo agrícola. ColecciónTechné. Editorial Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota. Pachón-Ariza, F. (2013). Food sovereignty and rural development: beyond food security. Agronomía Colombiana, 31, 362–377. Pachón-Ariza, F., & Molina, J. P. (Eds.). (2014). Investigando y actuando en territorios rurales. Bogotá: Editorial Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Parrado, A., & Molina, J. P. (2014). Mercados campesinos: modelo de acceso a mercados y seguridad alimentaria en la región central de Colombia/. Patel, R. (2009). Food sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(3), 663–706. http://doi.org/10.1080/03066150903143079



51

Polanyi, K. (1977). The Economistic Fallacy. Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 1(1), 9–18. http://doi.org/10.2307/40240754 Polo Blanco, J. (2013). Karl Polanyi y la “hybris” economicista de la Modernidad. Logos. Anales Del Seminario de Metafísica; Vol 46 (2013). Retrieved from http://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/ASEM/article/view/42873 Ramírez-Miranda, C. (2014). Critical reflections on the New Rurality and the rural territorial development approaches in Latin America. Agronomía Colombiana, 32(1), 122–129. Rosset, P. (2003). Food sovereignty: global rallying cry of farmer movements. Food First Backgrounder, 9(4), 1–4. Schejtman, A., & Berdegué, J. (2003). Desarrollo territorial rural. Santiago, Chile, RIMISP. Scoones, I. (2009). Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 171–196. Silva Pérez, R. (2010). Multifuncionalidad agraria y territorio: Algunas reflexiones y propuestas de análisis. EURE (Santiago), 36(109), 5–33. Van der Ploeg, J. D., Jingzhong, Y., & Schneider, S. (2012). Rural development through the construction of new, nested, markets: comparative perspectives from China, Brazil and the European Union. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(1), 133–173. http://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2011.652619



52

CHAPTER 3

HERITAGE AND PATRIMONY OF THE PEASANTRY: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK TO ADDRESS RURAL DEVELOPMENT6

Fabio Alberto Pachón Ariza7 Wolfgang Bokelmann8 César Adrián Ramírez Miranda9

6

Published as a chapter of the book: Community Capacity and Resilience in Latin America. Edited by Paul R. Lachapelle, Isabel Gutierrez-Montes and Cornelia Butler Flora. Published in New York by Routledge, 2017. 7 Department of Rural Development, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia 8 Albrecht Daniel Thaer-Institut für Agrar- und Gartenbauwiss. Humboldt Universität zu Berlín, Berlin, Germany 9 Direction of Regional Centers, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Chapingo, Mexico



53

ABSTRACT Rural development is hard to tackle. It is exceptionally multifaceted, and it is a challenge to define it well. Its features make it a ‘wicked problem’, where the consequences of rural development challenges are the causes of other complications. So far, the critical discussion of rural development has been on productive and economic concerns. It has moved crucial aspects such as the environment, infrastructure, or the respect for fundamental rights to second places. This paper describes the ‘Heritage and Patrimony of the Peasantry’, an alternative analytical framework to address rural development, which offers an improvement over previous approaches. The current analytical framework takes relevant topics from previous perspectives of rural development but essentially is based on food sovereignty principles. The peasantry holds seven kinds of ‘heritages’ and ‘patrimonies’: natural, cultural, economic, physical, social, institutional, and human heritages. ‘Heritage and Patrimony of the Peasantry’ framework moves away from the market point of view, which converts everything into an asset that can be marketed. These heritages or patrimonies are the basis of the construction of a standard of living and the accomplishment of the rights for all rural inhabitants, in other words, rural development. 3.1 Introduction Rural Development has been one of the primary concerns of governments in the last decades, especially in developing countries. Multiple strategies have been put forward to achieve rural development. The results are better in some places than in others; however, the strategies and solutions proposed have not been able to cover all the problems related to an acceptable quality of rural life and to ensure the respect of all rural inhabitants’ rights. Rural development is a situation hard to solve. It is extremely intricate, and it is a challenge to define it well. Indeed, its common difficulties make policies seek to address minor problems or their consequences, rather than solving major complications (Briggs, 2007). For example, a critical discussion on rural development matters has been tackled based on a technocratic approach, which has moved crucial aspects such as the environment, the peasantry, or the respect of fundamental rights to secondary places. This paper aims to explain an alternative analytical framework to address rural development in a straightforward way: ‘Heritage and Patrimony of the Peasantry’. This article puts for consideration of all the stakeholders interested in rural concerns, a proposal that gathers fundamental characteristics of rural development approaches that have proposed alternatives to solve rural problems. The current analytical framework, based on the idea of heritages and patrimonies, suggests a way where all these heritages cooperate and thereby take advantages to achieve a better life for all rural inhabitants. 3.2 Rural development, a ‘wicked problem.' A ‘wicked problem’ is a social or cultural situation, which, in general, involves many people and is challenging and tough to solve. Rittel & Webber (1973) defined a ‘wicked problem’ as a fatal, tricky or aggressive condition, and enclosed in a vicious circle. A ‘wicked problem’ is complex to elucidate for several reasons. Firstly, because it is incompletely understood, or its information is contradictory (Roberts, 2012). It is hard to define clearly as a consequence of that lack of comprehension. Secondly, because there are many people and opinions involved in it, and then the nature of the problem depends on who has tackled it. Thirdly, it requires an enormous fiscal burden to solve it. Finally, because it has numerous interdependencies, it is interconnected with other problems, and its consequences are the causes of other problems. Rittel & Webber (1973) defined ten characteristics of wicked problems, which could be applied in the scope of rural development. Firstly, wicked problems have no definitive formulation. Concerning rural development, several approaches, from the technocratic point of view to the



54

political approach, have tried to address it. Each approach offers a set of solutions for rural development problems; however, these solutions have not been comprehensive to have a definitive understanding of the entire problem so far. Secondly, it is arduous and demanding to quantify or declare success with wicked problems, due mainly to the fact that they create many other problems, as opposed to the limits of common problems that can be explained or interpreted. Regarding rural development, there is often a disagreement about the causes of problems. Sometimes politicians and technicians blame the idiosyncrasy of rural people. On the contrary, other mindsets explain it because of the isolation and segregation of the policies, especially in developing countries. The fact is that rural inhabitants in many places remain trapped in poverty, illiteracy, and illnesses. In other words, rural development has exceeded the capacity of the governments to deal with it (Head & Alford, 2015). Thirdly, the solutions to wicked problems are right or wrong. There is no suggestion that some of these answers are perfect or better than they are; the approaches should be tractable methods to enhance the condition. Rural development approaches, especially the technocratic perspectives, have proposed alternatives to solve the problems of rural communities; However, the attempts to tackle them often have led to unforeseen outcomes, which occasionally may be extremely deleterious, for example with the environment. Frequently a solution creates extra dimensions, which must be integrated into the analysis of the other problems (Luckey & Schultz, 2001). Fourthly, there is no pattern to follow when confronting a wicked problem, despite the guidance, the past can offer. People working with wicked problems must build ways as they go along. First and foremost, the most comprehensive approach has offered partial solutions to rural development challenges. Their focuses have mainly been, beyond the people, in the economic activities. Their solutions have aimed to increase incomes as the way to solve oblivion and exclusion. The desires of social inclusion of rural population have been left aside. Every rural community has its needs and wishes, and then the solutions to these requirements must be built taking into consideration the opinion of rural people themselves. These processes, constructed from the bottom-up, require flexibility to accommodate to unique situations and therefore, maintain the legitimacy of the inclusion of people in the participation in the decisionmaking process (Chambers, 1983). Fifthly, there are several elucidations for a wicked problem, and the pertinence of the explanations depends on the particular perception of the designer. As it was described previously, the main approaches to rural development explain the consequences of the rural problems and propose alternatives to solve them. The perspectives of the technocratic approach have focused their proposals on an economic point of view. From the Green Revolution to Neoliberalism, as well as from the Import Substitution Industrialisation (ISI) to Neostructuralism, the modernisation of agricultural production has been highlighted as the answer to rural development problems. On the contrary, the perspectives of the sociological approach have focused on the rural inhabitants’ needs. Between them, the perspectives of the socio-technocratic approach analyse productive problems in a social context and propose competitiveness as the way to solve them. Finally, the political approach and its perspective of food sovereignty have focused on the rights of rural inhabitants and the consumers, as the response to rural development problems. Sixthly, every consequence of a wicked problem is a symptom of another problem. Equally, the causes of problems are at the same time the effects of others. Rural development challenges are narrowly interconnected with other challenges and the causes and consequences of them. For instance, illiteracy and low level of education in the countryside are some of the reasons for other phenomena such as poverty, lack of participation, or low agricultural production. Likewise, when people do not know how to write and read their integration in the society is



55

harder than for those that know. Rural poverty is narrowly related to low agricultural production, although a high agricultural production does not guarantee to get out of poverty. Clearly, identifying the main cause of rural development problems is a complicated task. That is why a multidisciplinary approach is necessary to address it. Seventhly, no alleviation policy for a wicked problem has a conclusive scientific test because the society created wicked problems and sciences exist to comprehend natural phenomena. The approaches to addressing rural development have been incomplete. A multidisciplinary approach that takes the interactions and connections into consideration as much as possible, and emphasises on people and their rights over economic concerns, will allow tackling better a wicked problem such as rural development. Rural development policy actions have partially failed in the last decades, especially in developing countries. For instance, the distribution of power among rural stakeholders remains concentrated in those that hold land, money, and political influence (Roberts, 2000). In eighth place, giving a "solution" to a wicked problem is regularly a design effort because a serious strategy reduces the likelihood of trial and error. Rural development seems to go beyond the capacity of the governments and public policies, which creates dissatisfaction among rural inhabitants and sometimes in urban people (Brugue, Canal, & Paya, 2015). Traditionally, public policies have addressed rural development problems based on a disciplinary policy; almost all the time they avoid integrating much of the concerns. For example, agricultural production has been isolated from commercialisation. In ninth place, every wicked problem is exceptional. Even though rural development challenges are similar in many places, the solutions must be different. The problems are similar because public policies, especially in developing countries, have followed the same pattern based on the green revolution and neoliberalism. Hence, the consequences of such policies trigger similar difficulties. However, the solutions to these problems must be different everywhere (Bitsch, 2009), and must be formulated based on the peculiarities of the rural areas and the idiosyncrasy of their people. Obviously, the rural inhabitants themselves should construct such solutions. Finally, the designers trying to tackle a wicked problem must be entirely responsible for their actions. Governments must be entirely responsible for the consequences of the application of rural policies that have tried to solve rural development problems. Although in many places, the rural inhabitants themselves have been suffering the effects of such policies, they have been isolated from the society, and the recognition of their importance has been located in secondary places. To sum up the discussion, rural development is a complex, and interdependent situation that is hard to explain. It has been improperly understood, which means that the different approaches that have tried to address rural development have been incomplete. The strategies proposed have solved some topics. However, several problems related to rural development remain. That is why in the countryside, especially in developing countries, the persistence of problems such as poor infrastructure, isolation, and absence of social recognition are evident. Two significant points emerge from the above debate, what have been the central themes of the most important approaches to rural development? Moreover, going a bit further along, what is the most important characteristic to take into consideration at the moment to approach and solve a wicked problem such as rural development? 3.3 How to address and solve wicked problems The most efficient manner to tackle a wicked problem such as rural development is an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary framework. The integration of different disciplines and points of view, as well as innovative analytical frameworks based on such amalgamation, allow addressing the complexity of the real life.



56

The characteristics of social problems such rural development are complexity, ambiguity, and uncertainty (König, Diehl, Tscherning, & Helming, 2013). However, the disciplines try to simplify the opacity of the real world splitting it for the purpose of analysing every component separately (Espina, 2007). Such separation reduces the scope of analysis of the methods, minimising the attributes that emerge from the interaction of all the factors. Indeed, reality requires comprehensive analytical frameworks, which overcome the boundaries of the disciplines, seeking to find solutions for that complexity to be satisfactory and efficient throughout the process. A holistic analytical framework allows the identification of a complete and wide-ranging image of the problems. Such methodology attempts to tackle the complexity of challenges, allowing a better understanding of all their synergies and connections (Delgado & Rist, 2011). Equally, a comprehensive analytical framework realises the emerging capacity of the problems in rural territories, which are changing over the time. Usually, new situations, attributes, and problems appear according to the interaction of every component. Besides the holistic analytical framework, it is necessary that an adequate organisation address wicked problems. Members of that organisation, who usually come from diverse disciplines, must share similar objectives, cooperate, and especially be able to manage heterogeneity and the complexity of the disciplines (König et al., 2013). The organisation must try to manage conflicts due to the various points of view. Furthermore, and maybe most important, the organisation must take into consideration previous research and proposals that have addressed the problems, to avoid wasting significant time and energy trying to do something that somebody else has already done well, in other words, to reinvent the wheel. 3.3.1 Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary frameworks The academic community (Dewey, 1938; Miguélez, 2009; Olivé, 2011; Raasch, Lee, Spaeth, & Herstatt, 2013; van Rijnsoever & Hessels, 2011) commonly defines an interdisciplinary framework for the integration, combination, or mixture of scientists of two or more disciplines, different fields, bodies of knowledge, or modes of thinking, who bring their skills, techniques, concepts, and expertise to create meaning, explanations, solutions, understanding, and alternatives to tackle complex problems, which have been incompletely comprehended, or are socially complicated. Scientists working on an interdisciplinary framework must demonstrate willingness, temperament, and commitment to cross the boundaries of the disciplines because their results depend on the relationships, judgement, and dialogue with the scientists of other disciplines. An interdisciplinary framework is necessary for innovation and has been stimulated by international funding (Millar, 2013). It operates especially at a university level, and some reasons for it include access to know-how, access to implements and tools, transversal enrichment, access to funds, prestige and reputation acquisition, technique learning, efficiency enhancement, and scholars recruitment (van Rijnsoever & Hessels, 2011). However, its implementation and outcomes at the institutional level are yet in doubt. A transdisciplinary framework aims to understand and solve complex problems through the interaction of diverse disciplines. However, that interaction includes, besides scientists from specific knowledge, other stakeholders who come from any discipline, for instance, peasants who can make important contributions (Olivé, 2011). Besides tackling the complexity, the main goal of a transdisciplinary framework is to create novel concepts, methods, and approaches that overcome the disciplines. Hence, in a transdisciplinary framework, there is a dialogue between the scientific and the empirical knowledge, and as a result, interesting epistemological bridges are created (Miguélez, 2009) that strengthen both science and practice.



57

A transdisciplinary framework is greater than a mere sum of the disciplines; it is a collaboration among them, a method to merge knowledge where the boundaries of the disciplines are blurry (Espina, 2007). These methodologies are characterised by an emergent attribute, which bridges the gap between the disciplines and implies a novel transcultural, transnational, and transpolitical approach. Zemelman (2001) argues that a transdisciplinary framework must take into consideration all the entries and outputs as a unity, all the edges to explain and solve problems. He proposes to avoid using methodologies focused on a factorial logic. Instead, he proposes the implementation of a method focused on a matrix of complex relationships with reciprocal effects, where the problem is analysed as a network, emphasising on all the dimensions and connections that are articulated to each other. In the scope of rural development, challenges must be addressed watching the reality in their diversity, but at the same time, in their unity. In other words, the problems of rural development addressed in a transdisciplinary framework identify all the connections among the problems and the consequences of these relations (Fig. 3.1).

FIGURE 3.1. Rural development connections Figure 3.1 displays some of the challenges of rural territories and some of the implications of these problems. It also establishes the relationships among them, whether as cause or consequence. For example, education, one of the most important topics that determine the quality of life, exerts a strong influence on other subjects such as migration, land use, or poverty. Education affects migration because in some rural areas young people that hold a medium or high education level usually migrate to urban areas looking for jobs related to their backgrounds. However, when educated people remain in the countryside, changes in land use, conservation of biodiversity, or female participation are evident. A similar description could be established with the other problems. For example, social justice, one of the main demands of the peasantry around the world 10 , is hardly connected to agricultural policies, social 10

In Madison, Wisconsin (USA) in the summer of 2014 the 78th Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society was carried out. In the panel ‘Voices in the rural local food system’, Kriss Marion and Lori Stern talked about their experiences as farmers. They shared the idea that a key point to improve the quality of life for the peasantry is the



58

acknowledgement, or access to markets. The fact is that rural development problems are narrowly associated with one another. None of them should be addressed separately. An interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary framework is decisive to solve most of the main problems and their consequences integrally. In this scenario, ‘Heritage and Patrimony of the Peasantry’ is the proposal of an analytical framework to address rural development that integrates many of the concerns of the rural population and incorporates the key features of the most important rural development approaches, especially food sovereignty. 3.4 Heritage and patrimony of the peasantry, an alternative analytical framework Heritage of the peasantry offers an alternative viewpoint to tackle a wicked problem such as rural development. Initially, it is important to define rural development. In basic words, it can be understood as the stage where all rural residents get a standard of life that allows them to accomplish all their rights as human beings. Precisely, heritage and patrimony of the peasantry aims to organise, as much as possible, the topics involved in rural development problems for the purpose of addressing them in an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary framework. Heritage and patrimony of the peasantry framework are based on four milestones: rural territory, heritage and patrimony, quality of rural life, and respect for rights. Figure 3.2 shows the interaction of these milestones.

FIGURE 3.2. Scheme of the Heritage and Patrimony of the Peasantry

social justice, which could be represented by rural policies that recognise the importance of the peasantry in the society.



59

3.4.1 Rural territory It is important to understand what rural territory means. The territory is defined as a space that holds feelings of identity, development ideas constructed collectively, and its transformation is a result of the mobilisation and appropriation of their inhabitants. Besides the differences between the rural and urban concepts based on the number of people living there, 11 three main approaches have analysed the concept. Firstly, associated with a historical process, secondly with its functionality, and finally with an environmental viewpoint. Rural territory as a historical process is tightly linked to the meaning of the territory for its inhabitants. In this sense, rurality is a series of social networks that allow their inhabitants to get their livelihoods through a rational use of the available resources. Furthermore, these relationships among their inhabitants are characterised by tradition and culture, which are the base of rural identity. Rural territory and its inhabitants are characterised by way of living, attitudes, and idiosyncrasy. That behaviour of rural inhabitants symbolises an appropriation of the spaces and its resources, where the population shares feelings of identity, cooperation, and a sense of belonging (Dirven et al., 2011). Even though many of the members of new generations have migrated to urban places, they keep these feelings because their ancestors lived there. Regarding the functionality of the rural territories, it is related to the economic activities performed in these areas. For instance, crops or livestock production sometimes is strongly influenced by culture and tradition. However, another type of agricultural production is strongly influenced by the market. That production is highly specialised, industrialised, and organised in clusters by vicinity, according to the likelihood to use the natural resources such as land and water. Another possibility is to arrange a cluster based on natural advantages for mining or tourism. These clusters essentially seek the improvement of the competitiveness and the increase in personal profit. The benefit of that organisation in clusters is that it facilitates offering technical services, inputs, and support, on the assumption that the profitability could be transferred to the territory and to other inhabitants that do not participate in the cluster (Echeverri, 2011). One example of an insufficient transference rate of the profitability to the territories is the oil palm crops in several regions of Colombia. For instance, ‘Curvaradó’ and ‘Jiguamiandó’ are two small towns in the region of Chocó, in western Colombia on the border with Panama, where black protected communities were displaced from their land by armed forces, with the purpose to take their lands and to establish palm oil plantations (Rodriguez, 2008). Regarding the environmental point of view, it highlights concerns related to climate change and the likelihood that rural activities mitigate the factors that increase global warming. Since several years ago, when many people realised the consequences of global warming over their normal lives, rural territories have gained more relevance because they offer additional services 11

Faiguenbaum (2011) interestingly describes the differences between the rural and urban concepts based on the definition of population and the services offered there. Initially, he establishes a comparison between international organisations such as OECD, and the definition used in several countries, including Canada, Spain, France, and the United States. Similarly, the author analyses the concept by continents placing emphasis on some countries. For example, in Africa Botswana, Ethiopia, Guinea, Liberia, Senegal, Sudan, and Zambia are taken into consideration. From Oceania he takes the examples of Samoa, Guam, and New Zealand. From Asia Bahrain, India, Israel, Japan, and Vietnam are taken into account. From Europe he analyses the concept used in Albania, Austria, Czech Republic, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Holland, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, and Switzerland. From Latin America he takes the concept from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Puerto Rico, Peru, Dominican Republic, and Venezuela. Finally, from North America he uses the concept of the United States and Canada.



60

to the traditional ones. These services are related to the likelihood of an alternative development model based on ecosystem services, represented by environmental markets and environmental supply (Dirven et al., 2011). The previous discussion emphasises on the multifunctionality and pluriactivity of the rural territories. However, beyond the multifunctionality of the countryside, it is crucial to take into account more integrative thoughts such as the ‘inter-functionality’ of rural territories. ‘Interfunctionality’ means that there should be stable relationships, close interactions, and deep integrations among all the functions and activities developed there. The primary goal of the ‘inter-functionality’ is to preserve all the heritages of the peasantry present in these territories. An example where the inter-functionality of rural areas is not working properly are those territories where monoculture is predominant, undermining the possibility to produce food to feed their inhabitants. Many times, the target of the monoculture is a well-paid international market. The region of Uruapan in the state of Michoacan (Mexico) is a real archetype of this kind of production. Avocado is a widespread monoculture, mainly destined to Mexican migrants living in the United States. It is produced by peasants, small, medium and large farmers, as well as by multinational food companies. This monoculture, which is indeed well paid, has increased the incomes of many people (input sellers, transporters, harvesters, packers, and so on), who are related directly and indirectly to the production. However, due to the requirements of the United States market, farmers are obligated to cultivate only avocado in their farms. In other words, if producers want to conserve the opportunity to export avocado to the United States, it is forbidden to them to mix avocado with other crops such as beans, corn or pumpkins, even though these crops belong to the 'milpa', and are essential for a typical Mexican diet. The international peasant movement ‘La Vía Campesina’, and its proposal “Food Sovereignty” through the “Declaration of Nyéléni” (2007), describes the principles that, according to its deliberations, are the sine qua non circumstances through which the peasantry and all the rural inhabitants will improve their quality of life and will guarantee that their rights are respected. Figure 3.2 shows some of these principles, which are interacting with them inside the rural territories. In the background of these principles, a political dimension can be found because, although essential, the technocratic dimension has proved to be insufficient and overdimensioned, compared to the other rural aspects. Primarily, Neoliberal and Neo-colonialist proposals, as well as the World Trade Organisation, the free trade agreements, and other policies antagonistic to the thoughts of the peasantry are rejected. In this scenario, systems that allow unfair trade such as dumping and subsidy schemes in developed countries and those that are against the likelihood of the subsistence of the small farmer production from developing countries are shunned. 3.4.2 Heritage and patrimony The next milestones are heritage and patrimony. In this level, seven kinds of heritage and patrimony that the peasantry must mix to improve their quality of life and ensure that their rights are respected are organised. The first issue to debate is the meaning of heritage followed by a description of each heritage proposed. Heritage is a net of beliefs, traditions and customs, which a civilisation considers significant to its history, culture and identity. Heritage must be understood, in the scope of a patrimony, as those structures, articles, or concepts that a civilisation gets from the communities who lived before. That means that for the current framework, heritage and patrimony could be assumed in the same way. Beyond the concept, many aspects enrich and transform heritage and patrimony into one of the milestones of the current framework. Firstly, the social importance of heritage and patrimony. This constitutes the traces of memories that represent a social fact legitimated as something that holds the dignity of being analysed,



61

preserved and inventoried. Hence, it is socially appreciated as a cultural phenomenon such as collective memory (Criado-boado & Barreiro, 2013). Then, a heritage and a patrimony are the results of social construction. It is a symbolism for the dissemination of collective memory. Secondly, the cultural importance of heritage and a patrimony. This is the repository that gathers typical behaviours from different societies and groups, ways to solve difficulties, knowledge, values, symbols and socio-cultural frameworks. A heritage and a patrimony are used as means to show the culture, traditions, customs, background, and landscapes (Dormaels, 2012). Finally, the identity importance of heritage and patrimony. The acts appreciate heritage and patrimony as something own personal, and distinguishable; these are impossible to separate from the admiration and respect of peoples, communities and individuals. For that reason, the heritage and a patrimony are valued, managed, and conserved; something that is poorly appreciated is no longer valued as heritage and patrimony. These are a net of paths of life, beliefs, values, emotions, and meanings that offer an identity resource and add value to social, political and economic claims. It is a process of unification of identities (Santos, 1993). Heritage and patrimony are the expressions of the accumulation of knowledge through time. They are the way to understand and link the history and the traditions from our past with our present. At the same time, heritage and patrimony are the best way to construct our future. Figure 3.3 describes the Heritage and Patrimony of the Peasantry Framework in a virtuous circle. They must be appreciated and valued because they constitute a fundamental part of our lives. Venerated heritage and patrimony are protected and saved because they conserve part of our history. If heritage and patrimony are appreciated and protected, the society, in general, will ponder the importance of the peasantry and will encourage it among new generations. That promotion will inspire essential values of the peasantry. The circle ends and will start again when the heritage and patrimony invoke the satisfaction of the Fundamental Human Needs.

FIGURE. 3.3 Virtuous Circle Heritage and Patrimony of the Peasantry The circle starts, first of all, with the appreciation of the importance and momentousness of the peasantry and their customs by the society. People appreciate how rich the peasantry is, beyond producing food that is vital, to maintain the rootedness. People appreciate that several customs of the peasantry are the options to mitigate the consequences of the climatic change. People



62

appreciate that the peasantry and their activities indirectly provide many of the products and raw materials used in urban areas. In other words, people recognise the special qualities of the peasantry, the places where they live, and the things that they have done. If the society properly appreciates the peasantry, their value would increase gradually, and hence, the society will protect the peasantry. The next step of the circle is the protection of the peasantry and their customs by the society against damages. For example, people defend the peasantry from the policies that affect their customs and traditions, for instance from the disadvantages of the free trade agreements because they produce the food. People save the landscapes and the rural environment against injuries and damages to preserve them to mitigate the effects of the climatic change. The society stands up to defend the peasantry from the expulsion of their lands and territories. When the society protects the heritage and patrimony of the peasantry, the society will promote the heritages because they are important for the new generations. The third step of the circle is the promotion of the heritage and patrimony of the peasantry by the society and in particular among the new generations. For example, people support the peasantry by purchasing their products at a fair price. The society helps the peasantry to reach a quality of life and to ensure the respect for their human rights. People call the attention of all the society and the in particular new generations to appreciate and protect the peasantry because they are mitigating the effects of the climatic change. If the society promotes the heritages and patrimony of the peasantry, this will satisfy the needs of the society. The perspective of the Human Scale Development is the base of the satisfaction of the human needs, for both urban and rural populations, which is precisely the last step of the circle. The heritage and patrimony of the peasantry allow rural people to satisfy their human needs because the heritage creates levels of self-reliance. It also articulates the satisfaction of the human needs with the environment, technology, the global and local processes, and the individuals with their communities. Human Scale Development describes two types of human needs: Existential and Axiological. These requirements (fig. 3.3), are multiple, interdependent, finite, few, and classifiable. They conform a net where they interact, and their key features are simultaneity, complementarity, and trade-offs, which are exactly the characteristics of the process of satisfaction of these human needs (Max-Neef, Elizalde, & Hopenhayn, 1994). Finally, it is remarkable that the heritage and patrimony of the peasantry are invaluable. They are not marketable as part of the identity, in the context of the culture, in the context of the social construction where any heritage should be sold anywhere. In this scenario, the idea of ‘capitals’ is no longer used. Capital is associated with the arbitrage or process of purchasing commodities in one place and selling them in another for a profit. That means that the idea of the peasantry regarded just as the food supplier is excluded, forgetting its social prominence as part of the origin of the majority of the societies. Even though patrimony was described as invaluable, it could be categorised as tangible and intangible. Tangible patrimony is defined as those assets that are measurable, and people can touch. On the contrary, intangible patrimony is the assets that are not able to be touched, difficult to clarify and describe. 3.4.3 Tangible Patrimony 3.4.3.1 Economic Heritage and Patrimony Clearly, this Heritage refers to monetary resources available for a family. The discussion about this issue has been carried out in two different ways. In the first place, the origin of these funds and how they have been earned is taken into account. Secondly, the way families or members of the households have spent this money is considered. Regarding these concerns, it is significant to remark that several forms of getting money are against the improvement of rural development. For instance, when natural heritage or the environment are destructed as a result



63

of the rural activities. Another example, when these economic resources are the product of child labour, which impacts social and cultural heritage. On the other hand, regarding resources and the way they are spent, it is important to highlight that earning more money does not mean that the quality of life is going to improve. A household could increase its incomes, but if the family's head spends money on alcohol consumption instead of on other aspects such as education, this will not result in the improvement of rural development. For instance, it could lead to domestic violence when the family’s head acts under the effects of alcohol. In rural territories, the pluriactivity has become critical. Essentially, pluriactivity in the economic heritage and patrimony is understood as alternative ways to earn money for the household. Sometimes pluriactivity goes together with post-harvest activities to add value to the products and different modes to commercialise these products. Monetary resources become indispensable when they are used as a way to strengthen other heritages such as the physical or human ones. For instance, physical heritages are enhanced when the funds are spent to improve the household, get better floors, restrooms, ceilings, and so on. Another example is when the funds are used as part of a collective action to improve postharvest infrastructure. Human heritage is strengthened when these funds are spent to improve education for children, healthcare, and so on. 3.4.3.2 Physical Heritage and Patrimony Physical heritage and patrimony are imperative to improve the rural development level. However, it has not been relevant for the public policies in many developing countries since the implementation of neoliberal dogmas. Notwithstanding, according to the neoliberal perspective, many investments in rural infrastructure must be focused on the capitalist agriculture to improve the competitiveness. Physical heritage and patrimony are essential with the purpose of enhancing the quality of life and ensuring the respect of the rights of the rural population. For instance, roads and bridges are indispensable to have access to other communities and markets. Hence, roads belong to physical heritage, as well as health centres, schools, bridges, clean water, electricity services, and so on. Indeed, governments of several developing countries have abandoned the planning to construct adequate infrastructure. For example, according to The Global Competitiveness Report 20142015, the countries with the worst infrastructure are in Africa, and some of them are in Asia; Latin American countries, in general, are in the middle of the ranking (Corrigan, Crotti, Hanouz, & Serin, 2014). Besides the differences among developed and developing countries, the differences between rural and urban areas are significant because the preferences of investment always prioritise urban zones due to the impact that the percentage of the population has. On the other hand, the infrastructure takes into consideration items inside the households as well. In other words, the infrastructure that directly affects the quality of life for the rural families is related to their homes, for example, access to clean water or restrooms. This aspect is narrowly related to the economic heritage and patrimony because the use of the household incomes could define the improvement of infrastructure at home. 3.4.3.3 Natural Heritage and Patrimony Natural heritage and patrimony refer to biological resources. Some examples are water resources: lakes, rivers, canals, and ponds; landscapes: mountains, hills, plateaus and highlands; land, soil, alluvium and clay. It also considers biodiversity, for example, insects, birds, frogs, fish, flowers, plants, seeds, and trees. The weather is also taken into account represented by the sun, rain, wind, air, and snow. Most of the human actions have severely damaged all these resources, for instance, modern agriculture. This negative influence on natural patrimony has developed irreversible harms, which are currently impacting all humanity.



64

The peasantry is reliable to manage all these shared resources, and usufruct them, based on ancestral knowledge. However, productive pressure and some current policies are against this sustainable management. Hence, recovering traditional ways to exploit these shared resources will be beneficial for everyone. Natural heritage and patrimony managed by the ancestral knowledge of the peasantry could be a real alternative to produce food for all humanity and to mitigate all the effects of the climatic change. 3.4.4 Intangible Patrimony 3.4.4.1 Cultural Heritage and Patrimony Cultural Heritage and Patrimony belong to the identity, but most importantly to creativity. Commonly this patrimony could be understood as the forms to act according to the traditions. Of course spiritual and religious practices, as part of the connection with the world, belong to this patrimony. It could be expressed through peasantry practices, which have been neglected due to policies that confer priority to commercial production, instead of peasant activities. Examples of these kinds of cultural heritage are labour back or 'minga', terrace farming, ancestral forms of cropping as polyculture, ancestral pest control, or the barter system. In many places, these kinds of practices have been the ways the peasantry has survived. However, government policies, research preferences or NGOs practices, and cultural ‘capitals’ from hegemony groups have been privileged, instead of peasantry traditions (Flora, Flora, & Gasteyer, 2003). 3.4.4.2 Human Heritage and Patrimony Human heritage and patrimony could be described as the knowledge of the people, and hence of the communities, they belong to. Education, formal and informal, is possibly the best manner to construct human heritage. As a result of the instruction and experience, communities, and people obtain skills and abilities, represented by the 'know-how' concept; and therefore, they obtain ways to address the problems. Traditional knowledge is perhaps one of the most important human patrimonies, especially in rural areas, although they have not been adequately valued in many places. However, it is essential to remark that people cannot only acquire understanding in schools and universities. Without any doubt, human heritage and patrimony must be recovered from oblivion and transmitted to both, children and adults in rural areas through formal or informal education and training. 3.4.4.3 Social Heritage and Patrimony Social heritage and patrimony are the ways of belonging to a society and the ways of interacting inside this society. Many types of relationships surround the roads that a social conglomerate establishes to strengthen social collaboration. Confidence relationships are the most conspicuous feature of social patrimony. Indeed, trust is potentiated in the case of a real participation in social networks such as communal organisations. These organisations must generate a collective action to consolidate cooperation, improving the quality of the peasantry life, and ensure the respect of their rights besides pursuing an individual benefit. 3.4.4.4 Institutional Heritage and Patrimony Institutional heritage could be understood as the net of formal and informal institutions and stakeholders, which interact in rural areas. It also takes into account the rules that they develop, concurs, and implement to regulate the access to power and resources. Of course, these rules contribute to improving the quality of life and hence rural development, mainly in the case that they provide equitable participation for all the stakeholders involved, primarily for those who have been traditionally excluded. These kinds of arrangements, many times informal, can be carried out with the involvement of



65

all the stakeholders becomes real. This statement means that before this happens, stakeholders must be empowered. Empowerment is the result of the interaction of all the heritages and patrimonies above described. This interaction constitutes a kind of virtuous circle that will ensure the improvement of the other heritages, but at the same time, the change to improve the quality of life and the respect for the rights of rural inhabitants, hence rural development. The heritages and patrimonies could be analysed from the economic sociology of conventions (Leibenstein, 1984; Biggart & Beamish, 2003). Sometimes institutional arrangements between different stakeholders have been constructed by custom or tradition. In fact, these arrangements are the result of certain manners to conduct many procedures inside of the territory. These habits, routines or conventions become part of the everyday practices or ways of life for all the community, which finally are adopted in the context of the normal behaviour. In many cases, conventions correspond to the dominant political-economic model, although in other instances they correspond to unusual ways that sometimes become an alternative for many rural inhabitants. 3.5 Quality of life and respect the rights The final milestone is the quality of life and the respect of the human rights of the rural population, which perhaps is the simplest definition and, at the same time, the goal of rural development. There is an enormous academic debate about the quality of life and human rights. However, for the current discussion, the definition of Human Scale Development will be used. Then, Quality of Life could be understood as the satisfaction of every Fundamental Human Need through the creation of increasing levels of self-reliance and articulation among humans, the environment and technology, the globalisation and local processes, individuality and community. Indeed, the focus is on people because the satisfaction of the fundamental human needs is done based on people's involvement, privileging both autonomy and diversity. It aims to transform people, who are often perceived as an object, into people understood as an actor of the development. The participatory democracy constructed from the bottom up stimulates real solutions for real problems, which will satisfy Fundamental Human needs (Max-Neef et al., 1994). As a result of the satisfaction of these requirements, the rural population will ensure that their rights are respected. To sum up, the peasantry must mix all their heritages and patrimonies with the purpose of improving the quality of life and ensuring that their rights are respected. As has been mentioned before, the interaction of the heritages creates the conditions under which the peasantry will be able to identify and satisfy their fundamental human needs. This construction must take into consideration their beliefs, ideas, and meanings, as well as a better way to meet all of them. That means the peasantry must identify its needs by itself, according to the particular circumstances of each community. This concern is paramount because the generalisation of problems and solutions for all the peasantry has shown poor results in many rural places. 3.6 Conclusions Rural development has many of the characteristics of ‘wicked problems’. That discussion has been evaluated and examined from different viewpoints. One of the features of rural development is that various approaches have addressed its problems. As a result, many stakeholders often complain or disagree with the alternatives proposed. That is why this paper puts into consideration of all stakeholders interested in rural matters, a proposal that assembles the most important characteristics of these approaches that have proposed alternatives to solve rural problems, for the purpose of improving the quality of life and ensuring the respect of the human rights of all rural inhabitants. The current analytical framework, based on the idea of the heritages and patrimonies that the countryside and peasantry hold, suggests a path where all these heritages may interact and thereby take advantages to achieve a better level of rural development.



66

The heritages and patrimonies of the peasantry interact inside the rural households and among the rural families, that means in the rural territories. In all cases, the stakeholders must take possession of these heritages, mobilising all their knowledge, traditions, and transforming their territory looking for the best level of rural development. However, it is important to remark that all the society has to recognise the importance of the peasantry and their heritages. When that recognition happens, reaching a better rural development level will be possible for all rural inhabitants. However, the analytical framework of the heritages and patrimonies of the peasantry has yet gaps to be filled. To validate the framework, a methodology to measure the level of these patrimonies is necessary. Regarding this concern, a question must be answered: what indicators can be used to gauge the level of these heritages? Additionally, the analytical framework requires some examples of the application of these indicators in rural territories with rural families. Finally, another question must be addressed: do the public policies allow the improvement of the heritages and patrimonies? All these concerns must be tackled taking into account the involvement of all the rural stakeholders. 3.7 References Biggart, N. W., & Beamish, T. D. (2003). The economic sociology of conventions: habit, custom, practice, and routine in market order. Annual Review of Sociology, 29. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100051 Bitsch, V. (2009). Grounded Theory: A Research Approach to Wicked Problems in Agricultural Economics. Mini-symposium qualitative Agricultural Economics at the. Presented at the International Conference of Agricultural Economists. Briggs, L. (2007). Tackling wicked problems: A public policy perspective. Canberra: Australian Government, Commonwealth of Australia. Brugue, Q., Canal, R., & Paya, P. (2015). Managerial Intelligence to Address“ Wicked Problems”: The Case of Interdepartmental Commitees. GESTION Y POLITICA PUBLICA, 24(1), 85–130. Chambers, R. (1983). Rural development: Putting the last first. Routledge. Corrigan, G., Crotti, R., Hanouz, M., & Serin, C. (2014). Assessing Progress toward Sustainable Competitiveness. The Global Competitiveness Report 2014–2015, 2. Criado-boado, F., & Barreiro, D. (2013). El patrimonio era otra cosa. Estudios atacameños Arqueología y antropología surandinas, (45), 18. http://doi.org/10.4067/S071810432013000100002 Declaration of Nyeleni. (2007). Chain Reaction, (100). Delgado, F., & Rist, S. (2011). La transdisciplinariedad y la investigación participativa en una perspectiva de diálogo intercultural e intercientífico. Working Document, AGRUCO/CAPTURED, La Paz, Bolivia. Dewey, J. (1938). Unity of science as a social problem (Vol. 1). University of Chicago Press. Dirven, M., Echeverri, R., Sabalain, C., Candia Baeza, D., Faiguenbaum, S., Rodríguez, A. G., & Peña, C. (2011). Hacia una nueva definición de “rural” con fines estadísticos en América Latina (Comisión Económica para América Latina CEPAL). Santiago de Chile.



67

Dormaels, M. (2012). Identidad, comunidades y patrimonio local: una nueva legitimidad social. Alteridades, 22(43), 9–19. Echeverri, R. (2011). Reflexiones sobre lo rural: economía rural, economía de territorios. Hacia Una Nueva Definición de“ Rural” Con Fines Estadísticos En América Latina. CEPAL, Santiago. El Mercurio. Espina, M. P. (2007). Complejidad, transdisciplina y metodología de la investigación social. Utopía Y Praxis Latinoamericana, 12(38), 29–43. Faiguenbaum, S. (2011). Definiciones oficiales de “rural” y/o “urbano” en el mundo”. Dirven et Al. Hacia Una Nueva Definición de “rural” Con Fines Estadísticos En América Latina. CEPAL. Santiago. CL, 67–90. Flora, C. B., Flora, J., & Gasteyer, S. (2003). Rural Communities: Legacy and Change, 448. Head, B. W., & Alford, J. http://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713481601

(2015).

Wicked

Problems,

47(6),

739.

König, B., Diehl, K., Tscherning, K., & Helming, K. (2013). A framework for structuring interdisciplinary research management. Research Policy, 42(1), 261–272. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.05.006 Leibenstein, H. (1984). On the economics of conventions and institutions: An exploratory essay. Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft/Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 74–86. Luckey, D. S., & Schultz, K. P. (2001). Defining and Coping with Wicked Problems: The Case of Fort Ord Building Removal. DTIC Document. Max-Neef, M. A., Elizalde, A., & Hopenhayn, M. (1994). Desarrollo a escala humana: conceptos, aplicaciones y algunas reflexiones (Vol. 66). Icaria Editorial. Miguélez, M. M. (2009). Hacia una epistemología de la complejidad y transdisciplinariedad. Utopía Y Praxis Latinoamericana, 14(46). Millar, M. M. (2013). Interdisciplinary research and the early career: The effect of interdisciplinary dissertation research on career placement and publication productivity of doctoral graduates in the sciences. Research Policy, 42(5), 1152–1164. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.02.004 Olivé, L. (2011). Interdisciplina y transdisciplina desde la filosofía. Ludus Vitalis, XIX(35), 251–256. Raasch, C., Lee, V., Spaeth, S., & Herstatt, C. (2013). The rise and fall of interdisciplinary research: The case of open source innovation. Research Policy, 42(5), 1138–1151. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.01.010 Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. Roberts, N. (2000). Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. International Public Management Review, 1(1), 1–19.



68

Roberts, N. (2012). Tackling Wicked Problems in Indonesia: A Bottom-Up Design Approach to Reducing Crime and Corruption. Rodriguez, G.-A. (2008). The continued exclusion and marginalization of the black communities in Colombia (Continúa La Exclusión Y La Marginación De Las Comunidades Negras Colombianas). Revista Diálogos de Saberes, 29, 215–238. Santos, B. de S. (1993). Modernidade, Identidade e a Cultura de Fronteira. van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Hessels, L. K. (2011). Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Policy, 40(3), 463–472. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.11.001 Zemelman, H. (2001). Pensar teórico y pensar epistémico. Los retos de las ciencias sociales latinoamericanas (Vol. 10). Presented at the Conferencia Magistral, Universidad de la Ciudad de México.



69



70

CHAPTER 4

ASSESSING RURAL DEVELOPMENT: INDICATORS BASED ON THE HERITAGE AND PATRIMONY OF THE PEASANTRY ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK12

Fabio Alberto Pachón Ariza13, Wolfgang Bokelmann14, César Adrian Ramírez Miranda15

12

Journal of Rural Development. (Under review process) Department of Rural Development, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia 14 Albrecht Daniel Thaer-Institut für Agrar- und Gartenbauwiss. Humboldt Universität zu Berlín, Berlin, Germany 15 Direction of Regional Centers, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Chapingo, Mexico 13



71

ABSTRACT The meaning of rural development has been widely discussed worldwide among policy makers, academics, and peasants. The rural development aims to improve the quality of life while respecting the rights of all rural inhabitants. This paper describes the indicators selected to assess rural development at a household level and classifies them according to the analytical framework ‘Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry’ to facilitate the analysis of their connections. The Delphi Methodology was used to select the most relevant indicators, which has included the participation of a panel of experts, an online survey, statistical analysis, and a field test. The results show 23 indicators selected focused on productive, social, infrastructure, commercial, institutional, and environmental concerns. The indicators chosen cover a broader range of rural development issues than previous studies, and the methodology used to select them was inclusive of different stakeholders involved. However, restriction on technology access in the countryside was the bottleneck to reach the contribution of more rural inhabitants. Keywords: Delphi Methodology; Improve Rural Life; Vester’s Matrix; Wicked Problems 4.1 Introduction Rural development has the characteristics of the ‘Wicked Problems’ because it is a complicated situation, an adverse circumstance that involves many trials and tribulations; it engages a lot of people and becomes a challenge to tackle. A ‘Wicked Problem’ is complex and hard to be portrayed or answered. It is multi-causal, improperly comprehended and has many interdependencies. It is beyond the capacity of governments and organisations to solve. The stakeholders involved, frequently disagree about the ways to address and manage these problems. Policies should overcome them. However, their effects occasionally may further complicate the situation. That is why a chronic failure of policies is one of the characteristics of ‘Wicked Problems’. Rural development has not had a precise formulation. Several perspectives, from the technocratic to the political viewpoints, have tried to address rural development problems offering just by partial alternatives. The technocratic approach is focused on economic and productive answers to rural development challenges. On the contrary, the sociological approach highlights the needs of rural people. The socio-technocratic approach emphasises on the competitiveness, and the political approach on the rights of the rural population (Pachón-Ariza, Bokelmann, & Ramírez-Miranda, 2016b). These alternatives are not correct or incorrect, they are just incomplete, and have influenced the public policy especially based on an economic pattern. That is why they have often led to unexpected consequences (Brown, Harris, & Russell, 2010)) which sometimes are adverse to the environment, but especially to the rural people who remain isolated, illiterate, and trapped in poverty. An option to tackle a ‘Wicked Problem’ is a transdisciplinary approach that addresses the entire problem and connects the interrelationships among the complete range of causative influences. It tries to integrate all the problems and to find multidimensional solutions. For this purpose, it must take into account as many stakeholders and thoughts as possible to identify all the related matters. To do this, we need to determine the indicators that reflect the reality of the rural territories through a comprehensive methodology and analyse these factors in a comprehensive framework such as the heritage of the peasantry.



72

The heritages of the peasantry 16 is an analytical framework proposed to address rural development in a holistic way, motivated by the fact that, so far, the proposals have focused on specific topics instead of an integral vision. Initially, it is important to remark the rural development goal. In simple words, it aims to improve the quality of living while respecting the rights of all rural inhabitants. For the purpose of reaching this aim, the peasantry must identify, appraise, and use all the heritages that they have. Accordingly, the peasants hold seven kinds of heritages: cultural, social, economic, human, institutional, natural, and physical. The ancient knowledge, traditions, customs, history, behaviours, beliefs and production manners of the peasantry become a heritage, and based on it, improving their quality of life and ensure that their rights are respected. The heritages, analysed in the space of the patrimony, are those structures, concepts, principles, and attitudes considered as momentous by a social group because they guarantee the survival of its culture and identity (Figure 4.1). For the current analytical framework, heritage and patrimony are pondered in the same mode; however, both terms are contemplated in a different scenario form one of the ‘capitals’. As heritage and patrimony belong to the culture and identity, they do not have a monetary value. Hence, they are beyond of the market; people cannot buy or sell them because identity and culture are not a commodity.

FIGURE 4.1 Importance of the heritages of the peasantry Indicators of rural development analysed through the analytical framework of the heritages of the peasantry, could be an alternative to achieve a strategy through which rural inhabitants, in conjunction with governments, could construct consensual public policies. The goal of these systems must be to improve the quality of life while respecting the rights of all rural inhabitants. Previous investigations on the issue of rural development indicators have been conducted throughout the world. Some of these enquiries have taken sustainability or environmental approaches into consideration (Alfsen & Greaker, 2007; Ciegis, Ramanauskiene, & Startiene, 2015; Schultink, 2000). Some have considered a productive point of view (Binder, Feola, & Steinberger, 2010; D. Rigby, Woodhouse, Young, & Burton, 2001; Rossing et al., 2007), while others have focused on particular themes such as infrastructure, electricity or clean water access (Barrios, 2008; Caschili, De Montis, & Trogu, 2014; Ilskog, 2008). However, just a few have taken into account a broader range of topics. Hence, the measurement of rural development in

16

The word ‘peasantry’ is generic and includes all the rural inhabitants: peasants, family farmers, shepherds, indigenous peoples, fisherman, landless people, pastoralist, artisans, rural workers, and the like.



73

an integral sense has been insufficient. A possible explanation for this statement is because of the complexity of the rural development grounds. This paper seeks to describe the methodology used to select rural development indicators based on the analytical framework of the heritages of the peasantry in order to widely address a ‘Wicked Problem’ like rural development. 4.2 The focus of previous research on rural development indicators The kind of previous research focused on rural development indicators can be classified into four categories: firstly, those studies that privilege environmental matters; secondly, those related to productivity; thirdly, those focused on infrastructure issues; and finally, integrative and holistic studies. Following, every category will be briefly described. 4.2.1 Focus on Sustainable Development and Sustainability In the international literature, many types of research deal with the sustainable development indicators. The basis of sustainable development is the Brundtland statement and remarks on the economic, social and environmental pillars defined by the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. Human beings are at its core. That means an anthropocentric and pragmatic orientation concentrated on people and their welfare. Human life shall remain in a kind of balance among these pillars, featured by the harmony between health, productivity and nature. Human needs constitute the core concern. Regarding human needs, Maslow’s Theory and Human Scale Development perspective provide divergent viewpoints on this issue; primarily distinguishing between the kind and quantity of requirements and the ways of their satisfaction. In this scenario, some authors have proposed different types of indicators to measure both, sustainability and sustainable rural development. Farrow & Winograd (2001) measured rural sustainability in Central America based on a land use model. The most interesting issue of this research is the use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) combining several kinds of data in a more active tool. The importance of the use of GIS is the likelihood for policymakers to define better policies based on the transformations over time and space. 4.2.2 Focus on Production A current feature of this kind of research on productive matters is that includes environmental concerns and the multifunctionality of agriculture. Multifunctionality, in essence, means that rural areas offer not only food and raw materials, but also other kinds of public goods such as landscapes, protected lands, water, oxygen, spaces for relaxation, entertainment, and so on. In this scenario, Rossing et al., (2007) have described an interesting set of indicators to assess the multifunctionality of agriculture in France, Germany and The Netherlands. Based on this research, Mittenzwei et al., (2007) propose indicators relating the assessment of this multifunctionality with the Common Agricultural Policy Regional Impact Analysis (CAPRI). They have organised indicators into four types: food security, rural viability, landscapes and the environment, focusing on topics such as farmer’s surplus, farmland necessities, feed requirements, and nutrient requirements. Similarly, Cowell & Parkinson (2003) conducted a research based on productive indicators such as ‘land area and energy consumption’ to reorganise food production in the United Kingdom. After a sophisticated evaluation of different types of crops, and according to the consumption habits of the British society, they concluded that it is preferable to import some foodstuffs rather than produce them in the UK. Those are some examples of productive indicators used to assess rural areas beyond the conventional analysis based on crops' productivity.



74

4.2.3 Focus on Infrastructure Another crucial topic related to rural development is physical infrastructure. Regarding this problematic, several researchers have conducted, especially in developing countries, investigations to assess the advantages to constructing physical infrastructure in rural areas. According to Shen et al., (2012), the current situation in developing countries is that investment in infrastructure is lower in the countryside than in urban ones. This condition could be different in the rural areas near of principal cities. On the contrary, areas located far away from medium or the big cities usually do not have substantial investments to improve the quality of their infrastructure. Some examples are unpaved roads, reduced clean water access, the absence of sewage systems, poor electricity, or insufficient health centres and school buildings. The research suggests that a good infrastructure generates economic, social, environmental, and ecological benefits. Equally, they concluded that 19 indicators should be taken into account at the moment of define investment projects to develop infrastructure in rural areas. 4.2.4 Focus on Integrative point of view Finally, it is important to remark examples to evaluate rural development in a holistic way. The proposal of Kageyama (2004) in addition to defining rural development, also aims to measure it. She highlights the difference between the terms rural and agricultural. Its multifunctionality and pluriactivity characterise rurality. The investigation remarks that rural and urban are interconnected, and their boundaries are difficult to define. Despite the fact that the author argues that rural development matters be extremely complex, it is necessary to take into consideration all the factors involved to approach these problems. In this scenario, she suggests a network of indicators measure rural development in Brazil. She divided it into four groups: environment, population and migration, economics, and social well-being. The main conclusion is that beyond the increment of incomes, the improvement of infrastructure or the rising productivity, rural development needs a multidimensional approach to comprehending its real complexity. Based on this investigation, Correa et al., (2008) used similar indicators to evaluate the rural regions in North East and Southern Brazil. Similarly, Melo & Parré (2007) constructed an Index of Rural Development for towns in the State of Paraná (Brazil). Even though both studies share the same principles used by Kageyama, in the last case the authors used indicators for productive topics such as the number of hectares and productivity of corn and soya bean, as well as the number of poisoning cases by agrochemicals. Bryden et al., (2002) have conducted an impressive work to measure rural development in the field of public policies of the European Union. The primary concern of the research was the problem of spatial scale and related to it, the data availability. They defined three major groups of indicators: social well-being, economic structure and performance, and population and migration. They selected 500 primary indicators; in the end, 55 were chosen. The results showed that despite the enormous investments in public policies, data availability in all the member countries differed sharply. Besides, although the general vision of systems holds a territorial approach, in many places the persistence of a disciplinary vision was evident. Some International Institutions such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the World Bank (WB) and the United Nations (UN), have defined these kinds of indicators for their work. The OECD has proposed 20 indicators organised around four different topics: social, economic, demographic and environmental (Lehtonen, 2008). Meanwhile, the UN has defined four components of rural development: technology, ecology, society and economy. A successful policy based on these elements should diversify the economy, increase employment, generate access to useful services, and avoid migration (UNITED NATIONS, 2009). The WB approach to reducing rural poverty proposes five indicators: number of households below the poverty level, social and physical well-being, infant mortality rate, gender equity, and food security (WORLD BANK, 2000).



75

The conclusion of all these investigations is that beyond the type of indicators used, the availability of data is a serious problem because the collection process is expensive and difficult to do regularly, as well as the reliability of the information varies according to the place, being more complicated to analyse information from distant regions where infrastructure is deficient. 4.3 Methodology The complexity of some problems requires engaging as many stakeholders as possible to get a broad range of opinions and thus identify the fundamental indicators that allow recognising as many factors affecting, it is the case of rural development. Current research to fulfil this gap used the Delphi Methodology. This method is characterised...“ by structuring a group communication process so that the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal with a complex problem” (Linstone & Turoff, 2006:3). The Delphi method has been employed to tackle with problems extremely complex. It has been widely used in economics, and it is useful to gather the contribution of people with diverse backgrounds, location, and expertise; or when time and budget do not allow to organise many meetings (Linstone & Turoff, 2006). Okoli & Pawlowski (2004) describe deeply the pros and cons of the Delphi methodology showing a detailed example of its application in Sub-Saharan Africa, and similarly, Landeta (2006) evaluated the validity of the method especially in social sciences analysing three studies where experts were contacted to get their judgment to make policy decisions. Based on these suggestions, the current paper used seven steps to identify the main indicators to assess rural development. 4.3.1 Literature review Initially, 300 indicators were selected based on a comprehensive scientific literature review that measured rural development, sustainable development in the countryside, and other rural concerns. Later, the first selection of these indicators was carried out based on the relevance and the difficulty in measuring them. At the end of this phase, 108 indicators remained. 4.3.2 Second selection of indicators The second selection was carried out based on similarities. For example, more than ten topics related to infrastructure were grouped into one indicator. At the end of this stage, 86 indicators remained. 4.2.3 Panel of experts The third phase of selection used the methodology of the Vester’s Matrix. The Matrix aims to identify the possible influence that, in this case, an indicator could exert on others. Usually, this tool is used to analyse complex problems such as rural development. The result is a classification of the variables in four types: ‘Critical Variables’, those that have an extensive influence on the others, but simultaneously suffer the influence of the others. ‘Active Variables’, those that have a broad impact on the others, but do not suffer the influence of the others. ‘Buffer Variables’, those that at the same time exert and suffer a minimum impact. Finally ‘Passive Variables’, those that suffer full influence of the others, but that exert slight influence on the others (Cole, 2006). Participating in the Vester's Matrix requires a comprehensive view of rural development issues. That is why ten experts who belong to a research group with more than ten years of experience and numerous projects and publications about rural development problems assessed the 86 remaining indicators. Finally, 37 indicators classified as ‘Critical Indicators’ remained. The reasons for selecting them were: firstly, the concept of the panel of experts about the urgency to make a strong integration of the indicators, and secondly, these critical indicators, theoretically, create a kind



76

of virtuous circle of improvement. For instance, when indicator ‘X’ improves, it positively influences the improvement of the other indicators, which will boost the enhancement of the indicator 'X’ again. 4.2.4 Online survey This phase aimed to make a final selection of the indicators based on the participation of a broad kind of stakeholders involved in rural development. The 37 indicators (Fig. 4.2) were assessed according to the characteristics of a good indicator described by M. J. Rigby et al., (2003) and the UNITED NATIONS (2009): reliability, feasibility, relevance, completeness, comparability, and sensitiveness. The participants rated the indicators on a scale 1 to 5, where (1) was low level and (5) was high level.

FIGURE 4.2 Indicators selected for the global survey 4.2.5 Selection of participants The participants of the online survey were organised into six different groups: peasants, professors, lecturers, students of a master in rural development, professionals, and employees of public or private institutions focused on rural development. All the participants were chosen randomly. The selection of professors was made taking into account the authors of the papers consulted in the literature review (step 1) and other lecturers specialised in rural development. Students and professionals were selected from the websites of the universities. Peasants were chosen from the website of the international organisation ‘La Vía Campesina’, and employees were selected from the websites of public and private institutions. At the end of the selection process, 1550 surveys were successfully delivered to people from 29 countries. 4.2.6 Statistical analysis The statistical methodology to find the indicators used two different criteria: A. A high score in the survey. Assuming that a grade of 3,0 is an acceptable level on a scale 1 to 5, were selected those indicators which achieved an average rating of 3,75 or greater on all the characteristics of a good indicator described previously (step 4). B. Principal Components Analysis. It is a multivariate technique that allows grouping of indicators according to the relationship among them. The method used to build different kinds of indexes allows the assessment of the significance of complex matters. In this case, the



77

selection takes into consideration the first six components. That means the indicators retain 70% of the variance. The final indicators selected were those whose index was above 75 points on a scale from 0 to 100. 4.2.7 Pilot test and Final Selection A pilot test was carried out in the city of Florian, in the state of Santander (Colombia). Five families participated in it. All the indicators were assessed according to their understanding. Equally, the best way to inquire sensitive topics such as domestic violence, female participation, and the spending of incomes was evaluated. 4.3 Results and discussion 190 respondents from 29 countries answered the online survey. From the above, 153 answered all the questions. The statistical analysis was made based on the respondents who evaluated all the issues. In the current case, taking into account a total population size of 1550 people, 190 answers correspond to a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 6,7%. Nevertheless, from the total of answers, 153 people answered all the questions; this number corresponds to a margin of error of 7.5%. It is important to remark that similar researches conducted by electronic survey showed a similar participation rate. For instance, Miller (2001) got 54 answers in the first round of questions and 37 in the second one in research where the goal was comparable to the current. He used the second series of a survey to identify the indicators of sustainable rural tourism. Analogously, Wang et al., (2003) got a total number of 126 answers in its study to classify the indicators of reproductive health for China´s rural areas. Even though another kind of studies that used electronic survey as a methodology to gather information showed the highest rate of responses (Green et al., 2006; Kim, Gerber, Patel, Hollowell, & Bales, 2001), the current study combined a logic flow of steps to select from a broad range of factors, the most relevant topics according to the perception of several stakeholders related to rural development, including an expert group and people with different backgrounds. At the end of the selection process, 23 indicators were chosen. Figure 4.3 shows all the indicators ordered according to the grade received.



78

FIGURE 4.3 Indicators selected The indicators selected to cover a broad range of rural development concerns, but besides typical topics such as production level, technical assistance, and enterpreneurism, the selection includes aspects usually forgotten in rural development studies. For instance were incorporated many social topics such as the participation of rural women; the respect to the social, spiritual, and political beliefs by the relatives and neighbours; or the perspectives that the rural inhabitants have about their lives and the future of the countryside. Social acknowledgement is a crucial aspect included in the indicators. It refers to the recognition by the entire society about the significance that the rural society and its inhabitants have. The rural society identity and its culture belong to this indicator. Beyond the productive and economic topics traditionally associated with rural development, the peasantry has recently called on the urban inhabitants to recognise its rights as members of the society (Desmarais, 2008; Rosset, 2003). Precisely the heritage of the peasantry framework acknowledges the importance of the rural identity and culture, and at the same time aims to verify, through the indicators selected, the aspects to enhance that peasants want to reach the goal of rural development: improving the quality of life and ensure that the rights of all rural inhabitants are respected. Regarding those indicators, it is important to note two features: First, according to the number of heritages that the indicators belong, there are two kinds of them: simple and multiple. Simple indicators are those that belong to just one of the heritages and help to promote it. Multiple indicators are those that belong to more than one of the heritages. In essence, multiple indicators are synergistic. It means that these indicators improve rural development in an integrated way. Second, the indicators aim to measure the top concerns of rural development: the supportive, conservative and inclusive topics. These themes seek to reach the rural development goal described previously. The supportive subjects are related to the access to balanced markets, decent incomes, adequate infrastructure, and so on. The conservation themes are related to ecological and environmental issues, which are strongly associated with rural activities and the production forms of the peasantry. Some examples are the concerns to care the water, land, seeds or biodiversity. Finally, the inclusion subjects are related to the equity for the peasantry such as political issues and agrarian policies, for example, health, welfare or education.



79

The indicators selected will be organised according to the heritages of the peasantry analytical framework described previously. 4.3.1 Cultural Heritage The identity of the communities is the central feature of cultural heritage. It is intangible, and it is expressed mainly by the behaviours and manners of the peasantry according to their traditions and folklore. In other words, cultural heritage exalts the creativity of the peasants. In the case of cultural heritage, the indicators designated are biodiversity, female participation, family structure and migration, communal values, and finally, respect to beliefs. Figure 4.4 shows the principal features of each indicator.

FIGURE 4.4 Indicators for Cultural Heritage These indicators try to highlight the importance of the heritages. In the case of cultural heritage, all the indicators aim to identify topics closely related to the conservation of identity, behaviours and manners. For instance, biodiversity is essential for cultural heritage due to the preservation of traditional seeds and endangered animal species. It could help to preserve how the peasantry acts. 4.3.2 Physical Heritage Physical heritage is one of the most important means to improve life in rural areas. The presence or absence of good infrastructure could determine that a rural community remains isolated, without the likelihood to access to markets or establishing permanent relationships with other communities. The availability of both public and private infrastructure indeed will allow the improvement of the quality of life of this community in different ways. Figure 4.5 shows the indicators more narrowly related to physical heritage.



80

FIGURE 4.5 Indicators for Physical Heritage Undoubtedly, Infrastructure is one of the most important indicators. In it, the aim is to try to establish the perception of household about the described matters. However, it is important to compare their perceptions with the reality observed in the rural areas because sometimes, own attitudes could be different from the reality. For instance, a passable dirt road could be qualified as adequate or unusable, depending on the viewpoint of the customer. Other indicators remarked are incomes and entrepreneurism. Obviously, family income is a crucial topic. However, it could be more interesting to find out about the participation of household members at the moment to make a decision of how to spend the money. The reason is that money is more likely to be used to improve family constructions if women participate in the decision-making process. 4.3.3 Social Heritage The base of social heritage is the trust and the ways to establish relationships with family members, colleagues and neighbours, both individually and collectively. Belonging and participating in social networks will allow the strengthening of the ties of trust, which will enable people to take part in collective actions looking for the improvement of the quality of living. Figure 4.6 shows the seven selected indicators: female participation, social acknowledgement, respect to beliefs, fundamental rights, peasant organisations, family structure and migration. Indeed, the role of women in the generation of trust in a household is noteworthy. However, it is defined by the importance that women hold in the family. This issue is narrowly related to the acknowledgement of the importance of the peasantry into the society, as well as the deference to the diversity of viewpoints. Perhaps topics such as migration or family structure are commonly mentioned when social heritage matters are being discussed. The reason for it is the family is the ground in which each member of the society initially interacts. The definition of the future behaviour of an individual and its adequate integration into the society depends on the quality of these first relationships.



81

FIGURE 4.6 Indicators for Social Heritage 4.3.4 Institutional Heritage It is evident that the interaction of all heritages determines the improvement of the quality of life in rural areas. Precisely, institutional heritage focuses on normative ways to determine, construct and implement formal and informal rules. These rules organise ways of access to resources and power, in other words, self-regulation and social coexistence. Figure 4.7 describes the indicators selected: communal values, security, advantages for markets, main crops, peasant organisations, rural policies, and access to markets.

FIGURE 4.7 Indicators for Institutional Heritage Some rules organise the participation of the indicators into two different scenarios: public policies and markets, which perhaps are the most important settings related to the improvement of the quality of rural life. However, issues such as solidarity are on the ground of the participation process. Indeed, a safe neighbourhood creates the best environment to participate

82

in the creation of consensual rules. Safety, solidarity and confidence allow, in conjunction with other topics, the participation in peasant organisations and the involvement in the definition of rural policies. Atmospheres characterised by solidarity, collective work and respect to arrangements result in a favourable environment for market engagement. 4.3.5 Human Heritage Human Heritage is directly related to knowledge, especially to traditional expertise. This issue is fundamental to rural areas because, based on this understanding, the new generations of peasants will safeguard some behaviours and manners. However, it is relevant to point out that some traditions are not worthy to follow. For instance, those related to domestic violence. In the same way, the acknowledgement of traditions and folklore does not mean that cutting edge production must be rejected. It is not a call for a Luddite tendency. On the contrary, the new technological advances must be mixed with the traditions to find out a reliable way to get things done, especially those that look for protecting the environment and traditions. In this scenario, Figure 4.8 shows the indicators selected: female participation, social acknowledgement, fundamental rights and rural policies, and perspectives on life.

FIGURE 4.8 Indicators for Human Heritage The issues commented by the indicators selected try to find the role of women in the conservation and transmission of traditional knowledge. Equally, it takes into consideration the awareness of the peasantry prospect, especially regarding rural policies. In this scenario, the access to education, information and culture by the peasantry allows the possibility of mixing traditional knowledge and the last advances in technology. 4.3.6 Natural Heritage Natural Heritage maintains a close relation to those spaces where the human intervention has not affected natural resources over the time so that current and future generations can appreciate and be sensitive to them. Natural heritage embraces landscapes, animal and vegetal species, seeds, water, and other resources and natural phenomena such as the aurora borealis or water sky. Regarding natural heritage, it is important to remark topics such as biological resources and their use according to traditional knowledge, mainly looking for its preservation. Indeed, after



83

the evidence of the multifunctionality and pluriactivity of rural territories, natural heritage becomes as transcendental as productive matters.

FIGURE 4.9 Indicators for Natural Heritage Figure 4.9 shows the indicators selected about natural heritage: land use, biodiversity, recycling, technical assistance, and land characteristics. Issues such as the traditional ways to preserve and protect the soil and their features, as well as the type of seeds used nowadays to cultivate, are remarked in the indicators selected. Biodiversity tries to identify if some seeds, as well as some animals, are no longer used or spotted in rural areas. Technical assistance could become a crucial matter to achieve the goal of protection of the biological resources available in the countryside. 4.3.7 Economic Heritage Traditionally, economic growth has been privileged as the way to reach development. In rural areas, economic growth as a result of the increase in agriculture production has been the way in which the peasantry has reached success, and hence improved its rural development level. However, this approach has not been holistic to understand the complexity of these matters. That is why the discussion about the ways to earn by labour is related to economic heritage, but especially the use of these economic resources to improve the quality of life for the households. For this purpose, economic heritage takes into consideration different topics. Figure 4.10 shows the indicators selected: security, pluriactivity, incomes, entrepreneurism, land characteristics, main crops, access to markets, technical assistance, and advantages for markets.



84

FIGURE 4.10 Indicators for Economic Heritage The indicators hold a particular emphasis on productive practices, as well as the possibilities for the improvement of this production such as prospects for associated work or operational support. The spending of income is a distinctive fact to improve the quality of life. That is why this matter is highlighted for the purpose of identifying the participation of household members in the making of these decisions. 4.4 Conclusions From the methodological point of view, this paper described step by step the method used to select primary indicators to evaluate rural development. The method took into consideration a wide selection of stakeholders involved in rural issues. That is why the indicators selected try to cover many of the problems of rural problems in a general way. The participation of several stakeholders from different contexts allows the indicators to become useful for the countryside from diverse backgrounds. Even though the methodology permits the involvement of a lot of people from different places and backgrounds, it excludes those that do not have access to Internet connection or an email address. Similarly, more people can participate depending on the design of the survey, which must be attractive and straightforward. On the other hand, it is important to remark that a validation of these indicators is the new step of the research. Validating the indicators will allow other people concerned in rural development to use both, the methodology and the indicators to work in the countryside. These indicators are used to diagnose particular situations at the household level, but at the same time, they can identify activities, either of public policy or family actions, to improve the quality of life and to ensure the respect of the rights of rural people. In other words, they can be used to improve the rural development level. At the end of the selection process, a question emerges: are these indicators usable everywhere? In other words, would the indicators be useful to measure rural development in a broad way in different places? An example is a way to enquire about particular topics in various contexts, for instance, security or domestic violence issues in refugee settlements. Another distinction evidently is the availability of information in rural areas. However, both the analytical framework of the heritages of the peasantry and its indicators become an alternative to consolidate a baseline of information for rural territories.

85

4.5 References Alfsen, K., & M, Greaker. (2007). From natural resources and environmental accounting to construction of indicators for sustainable development. Ecol. Econ., 61(4), 610. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.06.017 Barrios, E. (2008). Infrastructure and rural development: Household perceptions on rural development. Prog. Plan., 70, 44. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2008.04.001 Binder, C. R., Feola, G., & J, Steinberger. (2010). Considering the normative, systemic and procedural dimensions in indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(2), 71–81. Brown, V., J, Harris & J, Russell. (2010). Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination. Earthscan. 312p Bryden, J., A, Copus., & M, MacLeod. (2002). Rural Development Indicators (Vol. 1). Luxemburg: EUROSTAT. Caschili, S., A, De Montis, & D, Trogu. (2014). Accessibility and rurality indicators for regional development. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst., 49, 114. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2014.05.005 Ciegis, R., J, Ramanauskiene, & G, Startiene. (2015). Theoretical reasoning of the use of indicators and indices for sustainable development assessment. Engineering Economics, 63(4). Cole, A. (2006). The influence matrix methodology: A technical report. Landcare Research Contract Report: LC0506/175. Correa, V., F, Silva & H, Neder. (2008). CONSTRUÇÃO DE UM ÍNDICE DE DESENVOLVIMENTO RURAL – RESULTADOS PARA AS REGIÕES NORDESTE E SUL DO BRASIL. Sociedade Brasileira de Economia, Administracao e Sociologia Rural (SOBER). Cowell, S., & S, Parkinson. (2003). Localisation of UK food production: an analysis using land area and energy as indicators. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 94(2), 236. Desmarais, A. (2008). The power of peasants: Reflections on the meanings of La Via Campesina The Journal of Peasant Studies, 24(2), 138–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.12.002 Farrow, A., & M, Winograd. (2001). Land use modelling at the regional scale: an input to rural sustainability indicators for Central America. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 85(1-3), 268. Green, V. A., K, Pituch., J, Itchon., A, Choi., M, O’Reilly., & J, Sigafoos. (2006). Internet survey of treatments used by parents of children with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 27(1), 70–84. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2004.12.002 Ilskog, E. (2008). Indicators for assessment of rural electrification - An approach for the comparison of apples and pears. Energy Policy, 36(7), 2673. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.03.023 Kageyama, A. (2004). Desenvolvimento rural: conceito e medida. Cadernos de Ciência & Tecnologia, 21(3), 379–408.



86

Kim, H., G, Gerber., R, Patel., C, Hollowell & G, Bales. (2001). Practice patterns in the treatment of female urinary incontinence: a postal and internet survey. Urology, 57(1), 45–48. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00885-2 Landeta, J. (2006). Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(5), 467–482. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.09.002 Lehtonen, M. (2008). Mainstreaming sustainable development in the OECD through indicators and peer reviews. Sustainable Development, 16(4), 241–250. Linstone, H., & M, Turoff. (2006). "The applications." Retrieved March 29 (2002). p. 616

Delphi

method:

Techniques

and

Melo, C., & J, Parré. (2007). Índice de desenvolvimento rural dos municípios paranaenses: determinantes e hierarquização. Revista de Economia E Sociologia Rural, 45(2). Miller, G. (2001). The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: results of a Delphi survey of tourism researchers. Tourism Management, 22(4), 351–362. Mittenzwei, K., W, Fjellstad., W, Dramstad., O, Flaten., A, Gjertsen., M, Loureiro & S, Prestegard. (2007). Opportunities and limitations in assessing the multifunctionality of agriculture within the CAPRI model. Ecol. Indic., 7(4), 838. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.10.002 Okoli, C., & S, Pawlowski. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15–29. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002 Pachón F; W, Bokelmann & C, Ramírez. (2016a). Heritages of the peasantry: an analytical framework to address rural development. 4th Nordic Congress of Rural Research, Akureyri, Iceland. Pachón F; W, Bokelmann & C, Ramírez. (2016b). Rural development thinking, moving from green revolution to food sovereignty. Agronomía Colombiana. In Press. Rigby, D., P, Woodhouse., T, Young & M, Burton. (2001). Constructing a farm level indicator of sustainable agricultural practice. Ecol. Econ., 39(3), 478. Rigby, M., L, Köhler., M, Blair & R, Metchler. (2003). Child health indicators for Europe. The European Journal of Public Health, 13(suppl 1), 38–46. Rosset, P. (2003). Food sovereignty: global rallying cry of farmer movements. Food First Backgrounder, 9(4), 1–4. Rossing, W., P, Zander., E, Josien., J, Groot., B, Meyer & A, Knierim. (2007). Integrative modelling approaches for analysis of impact of multifunctional agriculture: A review for France, Germany and The Netherlands. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 120(1), 57. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.031 Schultink, G. (2000). Critical environmental indicators: performance indices and assessment models for sustainable rural development planning. Ecol. Model., 130(1-3), 58. Shen, L., S, Jiang & H, Yuan. (2012). Critical indicators for assessing the contribution of infrastructure projects to coordinated urban-rural development in China. Habitat Int., 36(2), 246. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.10.003



87

UNITED NATIONS. (2009). Indicators on rural development and agriculture household income (Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA)). Beirut. Wang, C., Y, Wang., K, Zhang., J, Fang., W, Liu., S, Luo., V, Li. (2003). Reproductive health indicators for China’s rural areas. Social Science & Medicine, 57(2), 217–225. WORLD BANK. (2000). Rural Development Indicators Handbook. Washington D.C.



88

CHAPTER 5

HERITAGE AND PATRIMONY OF THE PEASANTRY FRAMEWORK TO ADDRESS RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND ITS APPLICATION IN COLOMBIA17

Fabio Alberto Pachón Ariza18 Wolfgang Bokelmann19 César Adrián Ramírez Miranda20

17

Acta Agronomica, 2017 (Accepted for publication) Department of Rural Development, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia 19 Humboldt Universität zu Berlín, Albrecht Daniel Thaer-Institut für Agrar- und Gartenbauwiss, 20 Direction of Regional Centers, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Chapingo, Mexico 18



89

ABSTRACT The theoretical framework “heritage and patrimony of the peasantry” and its suggested operationalization potentially offers an improvement over previous approaches to analyse rural development. This paper is the first application of the concept quantifying rural development indicators in six Colombian rural territories. The most critical indicators to define rural development in this context were identified as Biodiversity, Recycling, and Communal Values. Based on these findings, Human Patrimony has the lowest level of all the heritages of the Colombian peasantry. Public policies to overcome these matters in the post-conflict era should be the priority of rural development strategies. Keywords: Indicators, Quality of Life, Rural Communities, Rural Poverty, Socioeconomic development, 5.1 Introduction Assessing and quantifying rural development is a complex and challenging task. Several circumstances define its complexity. Firstly, rural development problems have been approached separately, based on a disciplinary point of view (Ellis & Biggs, 2001); secondly, rural development difficulties have been beyond the capacity of governments to deal with them. Thirdly, many of the beneficiaries of rural development policies have remained isolated from the spaces where the decisions are made (Van der Ploeg, 2013). Finally, the understanding of the significance of rural development, and hence the best way to reach it, have caused huge disagreements among the stakeholders involved in these struggle (Chambers, 1983; Scoones, 2015). Regarding the understanding of rural development, it has been focused mainly on an economic perspective, which privileges the economic activities of the countryside (Bernstein, 2010). Consequently, the rise of agricultural production has been the way to increase rural incomes and hence rural development. However, the prominence of social and environmental concerns in the rural development debate is currently accepted by many more stakeholders involved in the rural development analysis (Desmarais, 2008). The current paper defines rural development as the process to improve the quality of life for all rural inhabitants while ensuring that their rights are respected. The rural development approaches have evolved from a limited view based on a disciplinary focus, to a transdisciplinary emphasis where more relationships among all the challenges of rural development are taken into consideration. For instance, while the Modernisation of Agricultural Production was focused on the Green Revolution and the cutting edge of technology to increase production (Kay, 2005), Food Sovereignty emphasises the social recognition of rural inhabitants (Desmarais, 2002). In this context, it is important to define a different framework able to analyse the complexity of the countryside, as well as to identify the most critical challenges of rural development for the purpose of creating policies capable of overcoming those problems. Heritage and Patrimony of the Peasantry is a framework that includes the principal topics of the main rural development approaches. These themes are organised in seven heritages and patrimonies that the peasantry holds to improve its quality of life while ensuring that its rights are respected. Initially, it is important to debate the meaning of heritage. Heritage is a network of knowledge, traditions, views, and practices that a society contemplates as vital for its history, identity and culture. Patrimonies are those structures, thoughts, and behaviours that the society obtains from its ancestors. Based on these ideas, heritage and patrimony should be assumed in a similar way, and hence they should hold the relevance to be appreciated, protected, and promoted (Pachón et al., 2015).



90

The patrimonies of the peasantry are seven: cultural, social, economic, natural, institutional, physical, and human, which describes Table 5.1. Nevertheless, a crucial differentiation between capital and patrimony must be examined. Capital is connected to the procedure of commercialising assets and commodities; hence capital belongs to the market scenario. In contrast, heritage and patrimony should be considered as part of the traditions, culture, and identity of the society. Patrimonies are priceless and impossible to commercialise. That is why the Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry framework no longer use the idea of capitals (Pachón et al., 2016). Table 5.1 Description of the Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry

CULTURAL HERITAGE

SOCIAL HERITAGE

INSTITUTIONAL HERITAGE

ECONOMIC HERITAGE

HERITAGE AND PATRIMONY OF THE PEASANTRY FRAMEWORK

NATURAL HERITAGE

PHYSICAL HERITAGE



91

Cultural Heritage takes into account those aspects that belong to the identity, creativity and traditions of the peasantry. Similarly, other topics that determine the practices of peasants are the spiritual and religious beliefs. For instance, traditions or rural practices such as polyculture and barter systems. Additionally, the Cultural Heritages aim to identify how modern agricultural practices affect the identity, beliefs, and traditional practices of the peasantry. Social Heritage refers to the integration, relationships, and interaction among the members of the society. In this case, the interaction between the peasantry and the urban society, as well as among peasants from different places and customs. Likewise, it also considers how these relationships can create confidence ties that strengthen peasant organisation. Institutional Heritage denotes those networks of formal and informal institutions, organisations, and stakeholders that are permanently interacting in rural areas such as ‘minga’. All those networks create rules and arrangements that people comply and follow to regulate and manage the power and resources in the countryside. Economic Heritage refers to monetary resources. It is interested in how rural households earn incomes, and how families spend these revenues. Similarly, Economic Heritage monitors if the ways to earn rural incomes affect the environment, or bad situations such as child labour happen in those activities. It remarks in pluriactivity of rural households, as well as the commercialisation process. Natural Heritage refers to biological resources. For instance, water resources, landscapes, and biodiversity represented by animals, plants, and seeds. Equally, Natural Heritage takes into account the effects of agricultural practices on those resources, and the likelihood to recover traditional knowledge and ancestral production manners to conserve the biological resources and mitigate the consequences of the climatic change. Physical Heritage essentially refers to access, availability, and likelihood to use adequate infrastructure in rural areas. Infrastructure is essential to reach rural development. For instance, the presence of health centres, schools, bridges, paved roads, irrigation water, and transport network in the countryside. Likewise, Physical Heritage takes into consideration an adequate infrastructure in rural households, for instance, restrooms, clean water, or electricity.

Human Heritage is the knowledge of the peasantry and rural communities. Equally, education networks, formal and informal, must be analysed as part of the way to transfer knowledge, abilities, skills, and forms to tackle the problems to new generations. Human Heritage identifies the manners to recover all that knowledge that has remained forgotten for the last time.

HUMAN HERITAGE

This paper seeks to show an alternative method to address rural development in a broad way based on the analytical framework ‘Heritage and Patrimony of the Peasantry’. For this purpose, six different regions in Colombia were surveyed using a set of indicators selected through a comprehensive methodology. The current research represents a contribution to the analysis of rural development challenges, and hence, it is useful to all the stakeholders interested in those topics. For instance, for peasants because it is a way to identify their problems in a different form; for the government and policy-makers because it is a tool to identify aspects that can improve its practices to implement participatory spaces to construct public policies, and for students and academics because it is an alternative manner to address the studies of rural development from the conceptual and practical points of view. The methodology chapter defines the indicators of rural development selected, as well as the description of the areas designated to apply them. The results show the different findings of the application of the indicators selected, emphasising the differences and similarities of the regions studied. The discussion chapter analyses the results of these indicators in the shelter of the framework ‘Heritages and Patrimony of the Peasantry’, identifying the key points that could be useful for the construction of rural policies. Finally, the conclusions analyse the rewarding aspects of the framework and similarly, the aspects that must be improved in the future. 5.2 Methodology 5.2.1 Selection of indicators Pachón et al., (2015) describe deeply the Delphi Methodology used to select the indicators to analyse rural development in a broad way. The process used allows taking into consideration the perception of several factors by many stakeholders involved in rural development. Essentially, the methodology employed starts with a literature review of a comprehensive range of scientific papers that permitted the selection of the first group of indicators, which were organised according to the conceptual affinity they had. Thereafter, a panel of experts assessed the indicators using the technique of the Vester’s Matrix. Afterwards, the ‘critical indicators’ were selected. The next step was an online survey, where 190 people from 29 countries assessed the indicators according to the characteristics of a good indicator: reliability, feasibility, relevance, completeness, comparability, and sensitiveness. The results of the online survey were statistically analysed using the Principal Component Analysis. The final step was a pilot test of the indicators chosen. At the end of the process, 23 indicators remained. Figure 5.1 shows the seven Heritages and their indicators.



92

FIGURE 5.1 Indicators of the Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry Annexe 1 shows the indicators selected, as well as the questions that addressed key factors narrowly related to the ‘Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry’ framework. Each issue was classified into three levels: Low (1), Medium (2), or High (3) according to the answers of every interviewed. The standard of the indicators was pondered according to the responses of the questions that belong to them. Consequently, the level of the indicators could be Low (1.0 – 1.66), Medium (1.67 – 2.32), or High (2.33 – 3.0). Accordingly, the level of the Heritages is the result of the mean of the indicators that belong to every Heritage. For example, the level of the Physical Heritage is the outcome of the average of Incomes, Entrepreneurism, and Infrastructure. 5.2.2 Selection of regions to apply the tool Six different parts in Colombia were selected to implement the tool (Fig 5.2). The territories were chosen according to several categories: kind of agricultural production, distance to marketplaces, infrastructure, and size of farms. Correspondingly, they were organised into three groups according to their similarities. In the first group are the regions of Arauca and Sur de Bolivar. The second group is composed of the territories of Santander and Gutierrez. Finally, the areas of Tundama and Gualiva constitute the third group.



93

FIGURE 5.2 Regions selected in Colombia The first region, Arauca and Sur de Bolivar, are territories characterised by isolation because they are far away from important marketplaces, and the infrastructure, in general, is poor. For instance, the road network is mostly unpaved. Another important characteristic is the presence of illegal and legal armed forces that regularly fight, which means that violence is higher than in other places in Colombia. The fertility of the soils of these areas is low. However, both territories are rich in natural resources such as crude oil, water and biodiversity. Besides food crops, there is a significant presence of illegal cultivation. The common denominator of both territories is a limited presence of the government. In Arauca, 35 interviews were done, while 33 in Sur de Bolivar. The second region, Santander and Gutierrez, are territories characterised by two important nearby marketplaces, Bogotá and Bucaramanga in the case of Santander; as well as Bogotá and Villavicencio in the case of Gutierrez. Despite these strengths, both regions remain fairly isolated because the roads in the neighbouring area of the cities selected (Florian and Gutierrez) are unpaved, which means the transport becomes strongly challenging and expensive during the rainy seasons. However, in the surroundings of these cities, some A-roads connect to

94

marketplaces. The agricultural production is mainly food crops, although livestock and bean crops are the representative productions of both areas. In Santander, 31 interviews were done, while 33 in Gutierrez. Finally, the third region, Tundama and Gualiva, is characterised by an excellent infrastructure (highways and paved secondary roads) to access to markets, however, using it is expensive. The main market for both territories is Bogotá. Nevertheless, other places such as Tunja and Duitama in the case of the Tundama region, and Villeta and Facatativa in the case of the Gualiva territory are excellent marketplaces. The production in Tundama is specialised in milk, even though it is a perfect place to produce food crops because it has the availability of irrigation. On the other hand, Gualiva that produces lunch crops has a tendency to use the land for tourism. In Tundama, 39 interviews were done, while in Gualiva 36. 5.3 Results The results show big differences between the regions in some specific indicators, as well as similarities in other topics. In general, Biodiversity and Recycling were at a low level in all the six regions, while Communal Values was at a high level in all the territories. According to Kreiger et al., (2013) recycling practices are uncommon in rural areas, and our findings based on the families interviewed confirm this statement. Some of the interviewed understand recycling as burning off all the residues, as well as burying or covering the waste with soil, especially plastic and cardboard. However, there are special cases such as the Parra family in the Gualiva region, who reuses plastics to make flowerpots. Jakus et al., (1997) explain the motivations of rural households to participate in recycling programmes, which are similar to the reasons why the families interviewed, consider recycling as important in the countryside. They remark that a proper disposal of the containers of fungicides and herbicides will avoid poisoning events. They remark the role of the government to collect all these containers because they do not know how to recycle, even though they have heard about it several times. Concerning biodiversity, almost all the families answered that years ago their ancestors or themselves used non-commercial seeds. For instance, in the Tundama region, years ago peasants planted barley, and they sold their production to a company that made beer. However, for that company importing barley from Canada was cheaper when Colombia implemented the neoliberal policies, the border taxes disappeared, and the economy was open to the global market. Other traditional crops mentioned by the people interviewed in the Tundama Region as traditionally cultivated were the Andean tubers such as yellow and purple Oxalis tuberosa (oca), Ullucus tuberosus (olluco), and Tropaeolum tuberosum (mashua). However, just a few families plant these tubers nowadays. Aguirre et al., (2012) describe the current situation of these crops in that region, arguing that mainly the senior people planted and ate these tubers, young people do not know or eat them, and this calls the attention about the high risk of losing these tubers. Similarly, the interviewed mentioned that in the past it was possible to watch a lot of animals, but currently, it is almost impossible. For instance, birds such as eagles and condors (Vultur gryphus), or other animals such as bears, foxes, and deer are rarely seen. They argue as the main reason for that situation that hunting was allowed years ago. Regarding communal values, represented as solidarity in the questionnaire, got a high level among all the regions tested. The question was related to solidarity from neighbours when a difficult situation happened. Almost all the interviewed gave a high score to it because relatives and friends always have been alert to support when some natural disaster, bereavement, or illness affects other people. These findings correspond with Fafchamps (1992) and Skocpol (1982), who consider solidarity as an important characteristic of the peasantry.



95

5.3.1 Arauca and Sur de Bolivar As it was mentioned previously, both regions are distant from Bogotá, the capital city of Colombia. According to Acosta & Bird (2005), even though the administrative decentralisation started since 1991, the disparities among regions in Colombia are evident, and that is exactly the case of Arauca and Sur de Bolivar. Figure 5.3 shows the results of all the indicators in both regions, where the area of Sur de Bolivar shows ultimate results.

LAND USE INFRASTRUCTURE

BIODIVERSITY

MARKET ACCESS

RECYCLING

MIGRATION

FEMALE PARTICIPATION SOCIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT

FAMILY STRUCTURE

RURAL POLICIES

RESPECT TO BELIEFS

PEASANT ORGANISATIONS

PERSPECTIVES ON LIFE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

COMMUNAL VALUES

MAIN CROPS

SECURITY

ADVANTAGES FOR MARKETS

PLURIACTIVITY

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE LAND CHARACTERISTICS ARAUCA

INCOMES ENTERPRENEURISM

BOLIVAR

FIGURE 5.3 Results of the indicators in Arauca and Sur de Bolivar The infrastructure in both regions is really poor. Beyond the road infrastructure that is deficient, the most critical problem mainly in Sur de Bolivar is the electricity service. Around Ciénaga de San Lorenzo, the place where the information was gathered, there is no electricity service, while in Arauca in some rural areas the service is intermittent. Regarding other topics of infrastructure such as schools, communication, health centres, restrooms in the house, and clean water, the condition in Arauca is better than in Sur de Bolivar. It is remarkable that the transport network, especially in Sur de Bolivar, is virtually non-existent. The peasants interviewed must travel at least six hours by river to reach the market in a city nearby, which is the only alternative they have. However, it is precisely the same route they must use to have access to a health centre, bank branch, or a local government office. Obviously, it is an extreme case of isolation of rural areas in Colombia. Unfortunately, there are several examples like this. That isolation determines a low level of other indicators. Galvis & Meisel (2010; 2013) explore a kind of ‘neighbourhood effect’ that creates poverty traps, which maintain a lag behind particular areas of Colombia, especially those located in the periphery and borders. This lag, beyond the economy, affects other topics such as fundamental rights. According to the interviewed in Arauca and Sur de Bolivar, the access to education, culture, information, and health centres, or old age pension is placed at a low level. The key point behind this low level, besides a poor infrastructure, is the few real incentives to rural inhabitants to access education, information, or culture because it does not imply an improvement in their quality of life. In other words, the priority of rural areas is surviving or getting a basic livelihood, instead of getting access to education, information or culture. Along with the fundamental rights, the indicator perspectives on life, represented by topics such as the resting behaviour or alcohol consumption, was asked. Most of the peasants use to visit the city nearby to buy the basic groceries on Sundays, because it is the common market day, and



96

because it is the holiday for Catholic people, that is the largest religion in the interviewed rural areas. The indicator additionally asks peasants about problems with alcohol consumption, and their answers are related to these problems on Sundays because it is the day to visit the city. Regarding this discussion, Páez & Posada (2015) argue that the risk of strong dependency in rural areas be higher than in urban ones, even though the consumption is lower in rural regions. However, the problem remarked by the interviewed is that the alcohol consumption, especially in men, is associated with domestic violence. Another question formulated was about the future of rural areas, and the answers got a negative tendency, highlighting that current rural policies maintain the peasantry isolated and do not contribute to the likelihood to participate in the spaces where the decisions about rural population are made. Even though, since 1994 the ‘Municipal Councils for Rural Development’ were created to involve as many stakeholders as possible in the decision-making, and peasants as a central actor, they do not know about these Councils, as was mentioned by the interviewed. The low level of the next two indicators, technical assistance and entrepreneurism, are related to the isolation described previously. Consequently, the peasants answered that they had not received technical assistance from the government for many years. Nowadays, they occasionally receive some technical advice from the sellers of agricultural supplies but focused on the products they sell. The scheme of agricultural technical assistance was transferred in the process of administrative decentralisation from a national organisation called ‘Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario’ (ICA) to a municipal agency called ‘Unidad Municipal de Asistencia Técnica Agropecuaria’ (UMATA). Farah et al., (2004) emphasise in the fact that the UMATAS, as part of the decentralisation process, have played an important but limited role as a bridge between peasants and the municipal government. However, the lack of human and economic resources, as well as the influence of political interests does not offer a real solution for the technical assistance. 5.3.2 Gutierrez and Santander The results remark that in both cases the majority of indicators are located at a medium level, Gutierrez shows more indicators at a high level than Santander, but less at a low level (Fig 5.4). As it was mentioned before, both regions are located in the centre of Colombia, near Bogotá and other leading marketplaces such as Bucaramanga, Tunja, and Villavicencio. That means the isolation process described for Arauca and Sur de Bolivar is not evident in these regions because they are close to the capital city of Colombia. However, there are topics such as the roads in the nearby of the places interviewed, that hold acceptable usability during the dry seasons, but not during the wet ones.



97

LAND USE INFRASTRUCTURE

BIODIVERSITY

MARKET ACCESS

RECYCLING FEMALE PARTICIPATION

MIGRATION

SOCIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT

FAMILY STRUCTURE

RESPECT TO BELIEFS

RURAL POLICIES

PEASANT ORGANISATIONS

PERSPECTIVES ON LIFE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

COMMUNAL VALUES

MAIN CROPS

SECURITY

ADVANTAGES FOR MARKETS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE LAND CHARACTERISTICS SANTANDER

PLURIACTIVITY

GUTIERREZ

INCOMES ENTERPRENEURISM

FIGURE 5.4 Results of the indicators in Gutierrez and Santander It is important to emphasise the problem of the transport network that affects these regions, as well as several secondary and tertiary roads in small Colombian cities. Even though the infrastructure was ranked at a medium level, the peasants from Gutierrez and Santander remark that the unpaved roads generate a kind of isolation to reach markets and to receive the benefits of the public services. That is why the Advantages for Markets indicator are qualified at a low level in Santander. Equally, the condition of the roads network hinders the access to the benefits of the beautiful landscapes and natural reserves in their surroundings. Pluriactivity is an indicator of a low level in both regions. Pluriactivity refers to family members working off the farm. Martínez (2010) proposes an interesting debate about pluriactivity, from the authors who believe that it is a representation of a rural crisis, to those who argue that it is an opportunity to get family incomes, however, calls the attention in the likelihood to change the rural traditions. dos Anjos & Caldas (2007) show two visions of pluriactivity according to the importance that the agricultural activity holds in the territories. When it is important, the incomes derived from the pluriactivity are spent to strengthen rural culture. On the other hand, when the pluriactivity is present in areas where agricultural activities are in crises, the rural culture is lost. This debate will be resumed later at the moment of the analysis of the Economic Heritage. On the other hand, the indicator qualified at a high level in both regions was Respect to Beliefs. The interviewed think that their relatives and neighbours understand and show deference when someone expresses his/her ideas, even though these are different. It is interesting to find out a high level of this indicator in both regions that had a strong history of violence, especially during the decade of the fifties in the last century, where the main political parties faced each other in several rural areas, including Gutierrez and Florian (Guzmán et al., 1962). The answers gathered in Santander show a possible contradiction between two indicators: Market Access and Advantages for Markets. The first one was qualified at a high level, whereas the second got a low level. The questions in the Advantages for Markets indicator are related to special products for the market. For instance, organic, green label, or post-harvest practices that add value to products. Poultry production is the main activity near to the cities of Puente Nacional and Barbosa, while sugar cane and blackberry are the dominant ones near the town of Florian. None of the activities currently hold practices such as organic or green labels to add value to products. That is why this indicator was located at a low level. On the other hand, the

98

questions related to the Access to Markets indicator are related to the place to sell the production, which is mainly on the same farm; the forms of payment that are usually immediate, and the habit of selling products along with the neighbours, in the case of blackberry. 5.3.3 Tundama and Gualiva The regions of Tundama and Gualiva are located in the nearby of the major marketplaces. That is why the infrastructure, especially in motorways, schools, and bridges, even in rural areas is exceptional compared to the other regions analysed previously. Figure 5.5 shows the results of all the indicators in both regions. LAND USE INFRASTRUCTURE

BIODIVERSITY

MARKET ACCESS

RECYCLING FEMALE PARTICIPATION

MIGRATION

SOCIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT

FAMILY STRUCTURE

RURAL POLICIES

RESPECT TO BELIEFS

PEASANT ORGANISATIONS

PERSPECTIVES ON LIFE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

COMMUNAL VALUES

MAIN CROPS

GUALIVA

SECURITY

ADVANTAGES FOR MARKETS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE LAND CHARACTERISTICS TUNDAMA

PLURIACTIVITY INCOMES ENTERPRENEURISM

FIGURE 5.5 Results of the indicators in Tundama and Gualiva It calls the attention that an indicator such as Advantages for Markets, in both regions got a low level. However, as it was discussed previously, the production of the peasants interviewed in both regions do not have any added value regarding organic farming, green label or post-harvest treatment, despite the only mature cheese produced in Colombia, the Paipa Cheese is made in the Tundama region. Additionally, it is important to remark that the availability of irrigation in this region generates exceptional conditions to produce good quality food such as vegetables, corn, or bulb onion. However, the main production in this area is livestock for milk production. The peasants answered that they had been specialising in milk production because that activity does not require much hand labour, which is scarce in the region. That situation goes along with the results of a low level of another indicator: Migration. Migration becomes a challenge for rural areas. In some cases, migration is important especially for young people, because they acquired skills that in the future could be applied to their original rural areas and stimulate the economy (Stockdale, 2006).That is real when the migrants return to their original places at the end of the training. Otherwise, it becomes a drain of human knowledge that will benefit the places where the migrants finally locate (Taylor & Martin, 2001). Migration has both active and adverse effects in rural areas. For instance, in the Tundama and Gualiva regions, the hand labour availability has decreased significantly, bringing as a consequence changes of productive activities from those that require more efforts to those that are less demanding in hand labour. Equally, the most obvious consequence is the process of ageing of people in rural areas. Jurado & Tobasura (2012) added to the debate that migration



99

generates a change in recognition of the population as peasants, as they lose their identity as rural inhabitants; that means migration creates an ‘identity crisis’ among the migrant youth. Pluriactivity is the other indicator graded at a low level. Pluriactivity is narrowly related to the challenge of migration. The questions of these indicators are related to the members of the family working off the farm and if that work is full or part time. The answers to these questions in both places are that all the families interviewed at least one member working off the farm. Besides, it calls the attention that in Gualiva a lot of rural people are working in a new rural activity in the area: tourism. This field is located 80 km away from Bogotá, it has an excellent motorway, and its temperature is around 22°C, conditions that give this region the potential for rural tourism. Again, rural tourism shows a positive consequence because of the increased likelihood to get incomes for rural families. On the other hand, Gualiva holds a potential for food production because of the quality of the soils, water availability, and weather conditions. However, nowadays the pressure of tourism is changing the use of the land. 5.4. Discussion 5.4.1 Analysis in the Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry framework Hitherto, the results of the indicators applied in six different Colombian regions have been described; now these indicators will be examined based on the analytical framework “Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry.” As it was discussed previously, this framework takes into consideration seven kinds of heritages that the peasantry holds to improve their quality of life while ensuring that their rights are respected, in other words, to reach the best level of rural development. Figure 5.6 shows the level reached of each heritage for every region. CULTURAL HERITAGE

ECONOMIC HERITAGE

PHYSICAL HERITAGE

NATURAL HERITAGE

SOCIAL HERITAGE

SUR DE BOLIVAR ARAUCA GUTIERREZ SANTANDER GUALIVA

INSTITUTIONAL HERITAGE

HUMAN HERITAGE

TUNDAMA

FIGURE 5.6 Results of the Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry in all the regions selected 5.4.1.1 Cultural Heritage Cultural Heritage takes into consideration the identity, creativity, and traditions of the peasantry, as well as political, spiritual, and religious beliefs. The results achieved in the indicators that belong to the Cultural Heritage in the six regions analysed locate this heritage at



100

a medium level with a tendency to a superior border. Tundama shows the lowest level, and Sur de Bolivar the highest. Biodiversity is an indicator that belongs to the Cultural Heritage and remains at a low level and all six regions. As it was described previously, biodiversity refers to the loss of traditional seeds and wild animals. According to Andrade (2011) and the information system of Colombian Biodiversity, 798 plant species and 269 of vertebrates are in danger of extinction in the country; that is why the peasants interviewed answered that they do not use some traditional seeds anymore. These seeds, such as barley, were a fundamental part of their diets, which means a loss of the rural identity and traditions. Even though the Female Participation indicator was graded at a medium level in all the regions, it is remarkable that some of the women interviewed answered that they had been victims of domestic violence at any time of their lives. They recognise that years ago domestic violence was a common behaviour in all rural areas; however, several studies have documented that domestic violence, especially in the countryside in Colombia remains a problematic situation (Defensoría del Pueblo Colombia, 2014; Iregui et al., 2015). The common denominator for domestic violence according to the interviewed is alcohol consumption, especially on weekends. That is exactly one example of a cultural behaviour, which also happens in urban areas, which should be overcome to improve the quality of rural life and respect the rights, in this case, of rural children and women. Other indicators discussed previously, which belong to the Cultural Heritage, are Respect to Beliefs, Common Values and Family Structure. Precisely, Family Structure is composed of two questions. The first one is related to migration; a topic discussed earlier. The other subject was about the education level of the family members. According to the answers, all the interviewed are literate. Even though the education degree reached especially by peasants older than 40 years old is the primary school, all of them answered that could read and write. This topic is important regarding the Cultural Heritage of the Peasantry because the interaction with the entire world is more unfavourable to illiterate people. Literate peasants can recognise the importance of their role in the society beyond food production, and hence recognise the cultural value of many of their practices and traditions. 5.4.1.2 Physical Heritage Physical Heritage beyond infrastructure, which is crucial to reach rural development, analyses the availability as well as the access and use of this infrastructure. Barrios (2008) focuses on the importance of physical infrastructure of roads, drinking water, and irrigation systems to improve the quality of life in the countryside. However, the current analysis goes beyond and includes schools, bridges, health centres, electricity, paved roads, and transport network. It is important to remark that the mere existence of this infrastructure does not guarantee the improvement of the quality of life and the respect for the rights of rural people by itself (Shen et al., 2012). Accessing and using this infrastructure of schools or health centres adequately requires a sufficient provision of equipment and personnel to offer an excellent service. It also requires sanitation and education systems that allow people to receive a service with a similar quality to the one offered in urban areas. Contrary to Cultural Heritage, Tundama reaches the highest level regarding Physical Heritage, and Sur de Bolivar the lowest. Taking into account this aspect, according to the Global Competitiveness Report 2015-2016, Colombia is ranked 84 among 144 countries on the topic of general infrastructure, 104 on the subject of transport infrastructure, 126 on the quality of roads, and 60 in relation to the quality of electricity supply (Schwab & Sala, 2015). According to Departamento Nacional de Planeación de Colombia (2016), just the 20% of the total Colombian roads are paved, and 6% of tertiary roads, which usually correspond to rural roads, are



101

gravelled. Some of the reasons previously discussed explain why Colombia reaches that level, and hence the degree of this indicator in the current research. The explanation of the backwardness in infrastructure again is the isolation of some Colombian regions, especially the rural areas. Physical Heritage plays as well a fundamental role to improve the quality of life at a household level. For instance, the availability of restrooms at home, besides avoiding health problems dignifies peasants. In addition to that, the materials of the walls, floors, and ceilings and electricity of the rural homes, undoubtedly improve the quality of rural life (Ilskog, 2008). Reaching a proper level of that physical infrastructure at homes requires the participation of all the family at the moment of deciding how to spend the incomes, as well as if the household has the likelihood to spend its incomes in its welfare instead of paying loans, buying agricultural supplies, or alcohol consumption. Along with this, the participation of the family in new enterprises or new alternatives to get incomes, and the use of these resources to improve the physical infrastructure at home will result in a better quality of life. 5.4.1.3 Social Heritage Social Heritage denotes the integration of the peasantry to the society. The indicators of Social Heritage look to answer the question: how do these relationships can create confidence ties that strengthen peasant organisation? Initially, it is remarkable that according to the peasants interviewed; Social Heritage got an average level in all the regions. Social Acknowledgement, as one of the indicators of Social Heritage, got a high level in some regions while a low in others. Two questions belong to the indicator. The first question asks about the equity of rural society in comparison to ten years ago. Some of the peasants that think that the current rural society is more equitable than before argue that nowadays there is more likely to work in agriculture because the services offered such as communication, transport, and television are much better, and also because there is less violence in rural areas than before. On the other hand, people who think that the current situation is worse, argue that access to loans and technical assistance, as well as agricultural supplies, is more complicated and expensive than before. Furthermore, they emphasise in a situation analysed previously, which is migration. They argue that rural areas are being left alone and that just senior citizens are living there. The second question is about young people. The interviewed think young people are not proud of being peasants; they want to migrate and forget their ancestors. They do not wish to live as their parents, working in agriculture. The results of the assessment of the indicators of Social Heritage are somewhat contradictory with the real Colombian rural life. In Colombia, as in many countries, the whole society owes the peasantry a social recognition of its importance (Machado, 2009). The agricultural activities have been in the imaginary of the society as something carried out by isolated, poor, and illiterate people. Even though 70% of the Colombian population lived in rural areas 60 years ago, violence by various actors has changed the map, and nowadays just 30% are living there (Mondragón, 2002). According to Norwegian Refugee Council & Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (2015), after Syria, Colombia was the second country in the world with the most internal displacements in 2015. 6’044.200 people have been forced to leave their farms and belongings. Many of these internal displaced are currently living in the surroundings of the main cities under conditions of extreme poverty. Violence, displacement, and isolation are a common denominator of many peasants in Colombia. Those who remained working on their farms were affected by conditions such as poverty and isolation that led to significant rural social movements against the government in 2013. Beyond the agreements to solve the requirements of those movements, the most notable achievement was the recognition by the entire society of the role of the peasants, and the general support of their requests (Valencia, 2015).



102

The isolation of some rural areas, as discussed before, affects the Fundamental Rights indicator, and hence the Social Heritage. Beyond education, culture, or information, it is significant to observe on a major challenge for rural people in the countryside, the access to an old age pension. The economic support for aged peasants mainly depends on their relatives, which have migrated to urban areas or remain working the agriculture, but in many cases with low incomes. The system of universal non-contributory pensions becomes an alternative to support rural people (Johnson & Williamson, 2006). Kakwani & Subbarao (2005) show evidence of the successful reduction of poverty in rural households in many countries using universal noncontributory pensions. However, a real solution to deal with this challenge is yet under construction, but beyond subsidies, it is important to include old peasants in a scheme that understands the conditions under which the Colombian peasants have been working the land. Finally, to answer the question about peasant organisations, people were asked directly about the advantages of belonging to these organisations. The indicator got an average level, and the answers show the meanings that these organisations have for the peasants. Several argue that they be good because they receive benefits from the government; while others think that they are the only possibility to survive. However, the idea that social organisations are dangerous remains in the imaginary of many people, which prefer working alone to avoid problems because of the history of violence in the Colombian countryside. 5.4.1.4 Institutional Heritage Institutional Heritage encompasses official and informal rules that exist in rural areas to regulate relationships between people. In all the regions, Institutional Heritage got a medium level without big differences between them. The indicators that belong to this heritage show how rural people try to overcome the challenges that normally they suffer. Security and hence violence are one of the indicators. As it has been debated, this is a huge problem in Colombian countryside, even though, according to the answers, security is ignored as a significant problem in the regions interviewed. A possible reason for that perception is because the government since 2012 is involved in peace talks with the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC-EP) to achieve a consensual solution to the internal armed conflict that mainly rural areas have suffered for more than 50 years. Strengthening Communal Values is the strategy used by peasants to overcome the consequences of the armed conflict. Interestingly, Communal Values was the only indicator that reached a high level in all the regions interviewed. Weldon (2006) describes the communal values such as solidarity, tolerance, and inclusion as the characteristics of the social movements to overcome violence and inequality. The peasants interviewed described solidarity as the method to overcome this long period of violence; equally, they argue that tolerance and inclusion have allowed them easy access to markets avoiding distortions, especially in regions where violence has been more severe. 5.4.1.5 Human Heritage Human Heritages of the Peasantry highlights the importance of the knowledge of the peasantry, transmitted over the generations. It notes the skills and abilities to tackle problems. Human Heritages of the Peasantry got a low level in all regions, which means that the traditional knowledge of the peasantry has been lost throughout the time. Women have a crucial role in transmitting traditional knowledge among generations. That is particularly the case in rural areas because women share more time with children, and are in charge of their education (Nor et al., 2012; Smith & Akagawa, 2009). However, in the regions



103

interviewed, the level of the female participation indicator was not high, although the answers about this topic remark that women are currently more respected than before, and nowadays they are taken into consideration at the moment of making decisions in the households. It could be explained because is common to find women as the heads of households in societies affected by armed conflicts (Galindo et al., 2009). In this context, the perspective about the future of rural areas is ambiguous. According to the answers, the public policies are against the knowledge of the peasants because they try to impose production forms that ignore their traditions. Other reasons for this perception are due to migration and hence ageing; both aspects discussed earlier. An important topic remarked by the interviewed and mentioned before was that the entire society does not recognise the role and the significance of the rural areas. Besides, they emphasise in the aspect that the fertility of the soils has been lost because of the conventional cropping, instead of recovering the ancient ways of production. 5.4.1.6 Economic Heritage Economic Heritage refers to economic resources and how rural households earn and spend it. In all the regions, the Economic Heritage got average level, excluding Sur de Bolivar where it got low level. The indicators that belong to Economic Heritage have been explained before with the other heritages. However, it is interesting to remark that just a few of the interviewed have received some governmental subsidies; most of them special and transitory support to coffee growers. Regarding this topic, an example of the subsidies scheme of the Colombian government is the programme ‘Agro Ingreso Seguro’ (AIS) where the Colombian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development designed a strategy to support farmers between 2002 to 2010 to get ready for new Free Trade Agreement with the United States. However, these resources ended up in the hands of people without any relation to the agrarian sector in a clear example of corruption (Mejía, 2012). In general terms, Colombia does not hold a strong programme of subsidies to support and protect its agricultural production. 5.4.1.7 Natural Heritage Natural Heritage highlights natural resources, the consequences of the productive practices, and their significance regarding the climatic change mitigation. The level of this heritage was medium with a low tendency. Interestingly, Sur de Bolivar shows the lowest level, even though it is the region with more natural resources available. The results of the Biodiversity and Recycling indicators were discussed previously. Furthermore, the Land Use indicator reached a medium-high level. According to the answers of the interviewed, they have different kinds of crops, which means that polyculture predominates, which is a characteristic of the peasant economy (Bebbington, 1999). However, there is a clear tendency to use the land for livestock production. On the other hand, they answered that practices to conserve the soil are uncommon; by contrast, adding chemical products to it predominates. The Land Characteristics indicator aims to identify the land use in accordance with the ground type. According to the perception of the interviewed, they are using the land appropriately. However, according to the report of GISSAT (2012), soils with a clear aptitude for horticulture production, are currently being used for livestock, especially in those areas that are closer to marketplaces and the migration is higher. Other soils close to protected areas are being used to plant illegal crops. As a result of the presence of these crops, both the biodiversity and inhabitants of these regions have suffered damages because of the fumigation scheme to



104

eradicate those crops (Castro Caycedo, 2014). Such kind of fumigation scheme indeed has a severe impact on all the Heritages of the Peasantry. It is simple to imagine that aerial application of glyphosate can affect the entire life of the peasants, from the livelihoods to behaviours, from the health to traditions, because, after the application, nothing remains alive. Fortunately, Colombian government (2010-2018) decided to search alternatives to aerial applications. An alternative to such problematic situation regarding the Natural Heritage is, first of all, to understand that this heritage belongs to the peasantry and through them, to the humanity. It is urgent to appreciate the real value that the Natural Heritage holds, just when this is appreciated, it can be protected and promoted to mitigate the effects of the climatic change. The peasants living there are in charge of taking care of that heritage on behalf of all the humanity. Then humanity must provide the conditions for them to live and protect such precious heritage. Summing up, in general terms, the Heritages and Patrimonies of the Colombian Peasantry are at a medium level, which means that public policies have a substantial likelihood to create the conditions to improve all these indicators, especially in isolated places such as Sur de Bolivar or Arauca. 5.5 Conclusions This paper aimed to show an alternative method to address rural development in a broad way based on the analytical framework ‘Heritage and Patrimony of the Peasantry’. It was the first application of both, the indicators and the analytical framework. That is why the current study represents a contribution to the analysis of rural development challenges, and hence, it is useful to all the stakeholders interested in those topics. The analytical framework Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry, its indicators, and its application in Colombia are a new way to address a ‘Wicked Problem’ such as rural development. Undoubtedly, a broad vision to cover rural development in a more holistic way becomes a contribution to tackling as many aspects involved in the improvement of the quality of life and the respect for the rights of rural inhabitants as possible. A transdisciplinary approach used both, to define rural development indicators and the Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry is a way to overcome the particular point of view that focuses on specific problems ignoring the complexity of rural development. The current analytical framework and its application cover several challenges involved in rural development, as well as a way to analyse those challenges. That is why Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry opens the door for all the stakeholders interested in rural development analysis such as governments, researchers, students, and peasants to approach all these problems taking into consideration the indicators selected. An advantage of the current methodology is that it takes into account the meanings of many stakeholders, for that reason several aspects are included. However, that advantage must be tackled in an adequate manner, establishing all the relationships that all these topics hold. Otherwise, understanding the real complexity of rural development challenges would be tough. Taking a wider picture of rural development is possible when the outsiders involve the peasantry. That is another contribution of the current analytical framework. For that reason, this proposal could become a useful baseline in the future to evaluate the incidence of public policies in rural regions. However, as this is the first application of the framework and its indicators, a profound statistical analysis is necessary for future research for the purpose of establishing future analysis among territories, or in the same territories in different moments. In other words, the current paper aims to describe by the first time the framework and its usefulness in order to understand



105

and address rural development, but following applications are important to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the indicators and their relationship with the heritages and then improve the entire proposal. Official information regarding rural areas is difficult to get in several developing countries. Besides, gathering this information in a research project becomes a complex task due to funding limitation and access to isolated areas. The current research has collected information in Colombian regions such as Sur de Bolivar or Arauca where access is difficult. That is why this information is a baseline, based on the perception of the peasants, and then complementary studies with different methodologies are crucial to compare with the current results, and hence have a complete picture of the reality. 5.6 References Acosta, O. L., & Bird, R. M. (2005). The Dilemma of Decentralisation in Colombia. Fiscal Reform in Colombia, The MIT Press, Cambridge-London. Aguirre Forero, S. E., Piraneque Gambasica, N. V., & Pérez Mojica, I. (2012). Sistema de producción de tubérculos andinos en Boyacá, Colombia. Cuadernos de Desarrollo Rural, 9, 257–273. Andrade Correa, M. G. (2011). Estado del conocimiento de la biodiversidad en Colombia y sus amenazas. Consideraciones para fortalecer la interacción ciencia-política. Revista de La Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas Y Naturales, 35(137), 491–507. Barrios, E. B. (2008). Infrastructure and rural development: Household perceptions on rural development. Infrastructure and Rural Development: Household Perceptions on Rural Development, 70(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2008.04.001 Bebbington, A. (1999). Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for Analysing Peasant Viability, Rural Livelihoods and Poverty. World Development, 27(12), 2021–2044. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00104-7 Bernstein, H. (2010). Class dynamics of agrarian change (Vol. 1). Winnipeg: Kumarian Press. Castro Caycedo, G. (2014). Nuestra Guerra Ajena (I). Bogotá: Editorial Planeta Colombiana. Chambers, R. (1983). Rural development: Putting the last first. Routledge. Defensoría del Pueblo Colombia. (2014). El conflicto armado y el riesgo para la mujer rural. Estudios de caso en los departamentos de Chocó, Córdoba, Santander y Caquetá. Bogotá: Torre gráfica Ltda. Departamento Nacional de Planeación de Colombia. (2016). Efecto macroeconómico de las obras de infraestructura. Bogotá: DNP. Desmarais, A. (2002). PEASANTS SPEAK - The Vía Campesina: Consolidating an International Peasant and Farm Movement. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 29(2), 91–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/714003943 Desmarais, A. (2008). The power of peasants: Reflections on the meanings of La Via Campesina. J. Rural Stud., 24(2), 149.



106

dos Anjos, F. S., & Caldas, N. V. (2007). Pluriactividad y agricultura familiar en Brasil: el caso de Rio Grande do Sul. Revista de La CEPAL, (93), 157–173. Ellis, F., & Biggs, S. (2001). Evolving Themes in Rural Development 1950s-2000s. Development Policy Review, 19(4), 448. Fafchamps, M. (1992). Solidarity Networks in Preindustrial Societies: Rational Peasants with a Moral Economy. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 41(1), 147–174. Farah, M. A., Pérez, E., & Ortiz, C. (2004). La descentralizacion de los servicios del sector agropecuario y rural en Colombia. Cadernos Gestão Pública E Cidadania, 9(36), 44–72. Galindo, H., Restrepo, J., & Sánchez, F. (2009). Conflicto y pobreza en Colombia: un enfoque institucionalista. J. Restrepo., & D. Aponte.(eds). Guerra Y Violencias En Colombia. Herramientas E Interpretaciones, 315–352. Galvis, L. A., & Meisel, A. (2010). Persistencia de las desigualdades regionales en Colombia: Un análisis espacial. Documentos de Trabajo Sobre Economía Regional, 120, 44. Galvis, L., & Meisel, A. (2013). Regional Inequalities and Regional Policies in Colombia: The Experience of the Last Two Decades. In J. R. Cuadrado-Roura & P. Aroca (Eds.), Regional Problems and Policies in Latin America (pp. 197–223). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39674-8_9 GISSAT. (2012). Evaluación del impacto y plan de manejo de los suelos afectados por las inundaciones en los valles de Tundama y Sugamuxi (Boyacá) (GRUPO INTERINSTITUCIONAL DE INVESTIGACION EN SUELOS SULFATADOS ACIDOS TROPICALES). Tunja: GRUPO INTERINSTITUCIONAL DE INVESTIGACION EN SUELOS SULFATADOS ACIDOS TROPICALES. Guzmán Campos, G., Fals Borda, O., & Umaña Luna, E. (1962). La violencia en Colombia. Estudio de Un Proceso Social, 2, 1962–64. Ilskog, E. (2008). Indicators for assessment of rural electrification—An approach for the comparison of apples and pears. Energy Policy, 36(7), 2665–2673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.03.023 Iregui-Bohórquez, A. M., Ramírez-Giraldo, M. T., & Tribín-Uribe, A. M. (2015). Mujer rural y violencia doméstica en Colombia. Banco de la República, Bogotá, Colombia. Jakus, P. M., Tiller, K. H., & Park, W. M. (1997). Explaining Rural Household Participation in Recycling. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 29(01), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1074070800007628 Johnson, J. K. M., & Williamson, J. B. (2006). Do universal non-contributory old-age pensions make sense for rural areas in low-income countries? International Social Security Review, 59(4), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-246X.2006.00253.x Jurado, C., & Tobasura, I. (2012). The youth dilemma in rural territories of the coffee growing region, Colombia:¿ the countryside area or the city? Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, Niñez Y Juventud, 10(1), 63–77. Kakwani, N., & Subbarao, K. (2005). Ageing and poverty in Africa and the role of social



107

pensions. Washington D.C.: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/8535 License: CC BY 3.0 Unported.”. Kay. (2005). Enfoques sobre el Desarrollo Rural en América Latina y Europa desde Mediados del Siglo Veinte [Versión electrónica]. Institute of Social Studies de La Haya. Consultado El, 31. Kreiger, M., Anzalone, G. C., Mulder, M. L., Glover, A., & Pearce, J. M. (2013). Distributed Recycling of Post-Consumer Plastic Waste in Rural Areas. MRS Online Proceedings Library Archive, 1492, 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1557/opl.2013.258 Machado, A. (2009). La reforma rural, una deuda social y política. Bogotá, Colombia: Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Centro de Investigaciones Para El Desarrollo, 601, 39. Martínez, M. J. (2010). Nueva ruralidad, la‘ remake’ del término pluriactividad. Nómadas. Revista Crítica de Ciencias Sociales Y Jurídicas, 26(2), 213–228. Mejía Cubillos, J. (2012). ‘Agro, Ingreso Seguro’en Perspectiva: Un Análisis de Políticas Públicas (’Agro, Ingreso Seguro’in a Public Policy Analysis Perspective). MPRA Paper, 39998. Mondragón, H. (2002). La organización campesina en un ambiente de terror (Vol. 7). Instituto Latinoamericano de Servicios Legales Alternativos. Nor, N. M., Sharif, M. S. M., Zahari, M. S. M., Salleh, H. M., Isha, N., & Muhammad, R. (2012). The Transmission Modes of Malay Traditional Food Knowledge within Generations. AcE-Bs 2012 Bangkok, Sukosol Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand, 16-18 July, 2012, 50, 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.017 Norwegian Refugee Council, & Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. (2015). Global Overview 2015. People internally displaced by conflict and violence (1st ed.). Pachón-Ariza, F., Bokelmann, W., & Ramírez-Miranda, C. (2015). Rural Development Indicators Based on Food Sovereignty Principles: A Methodology for their Selection. In Knowing Rural: Situating the Lived Experience of Rurality in Definitions of Rural. Madison, Wisconsin. USA. Pachón-Ariza, F., Bokelmann, W., & Ramírez-Miranda, C. (n.d.). Heritages and patrimony of the peasantry: an analytical framework to address rural development. In Unpublished. Páez-Zapata, E., & Posada, I. C. (2015). Meanings of Alcohol Consumption in a Rural Community in Antioquia, Colombia, 2010-2011. Revista Ciencias de La Salud, 13(1), 77–90. Schwab, K., & Sala-i-Martín, X. (2015). The Global Competitiveness Report 2015-2016 (World Economic Forum). Scoones, I. (2015). Sustainable livelihoods and rural development. Winnipeg: Practical Action Publishing. Shen, L., Jiang, S., & Yuan, H. (2012). Critical indicators for assessing the contribution of infrastructure projects to coordinated urban–rural development in China. Habitat International, 36(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.10.003



108

Skocpol, T. (1982). What Makes Peasants Revolutionary? Comparative Politics, 14(3), 351– 375. https://doi.org/10.2307/421958 Smith, L., & Akagawa, N. (2009). Intangible heritage. New York: Routledge. Stockdale, A. (2006). Migration: Pre-requisite for rural economic regeneration? Journal of Rural Studies, 22(3), 354–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.11.001 Taylor, J. E., & Martin, P. L. (2001). Chapter 9 Human capital: Migration and rural population change. In Handbook of Agricultural Economics (Vol. Volume 1, Part A, pp. 457–511). Elsevier. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1574007201100125 Valencia, H. Y. O. (2015). Concepto del Campesino y su resignificación desde la protesta social del paro agrario Colombia 2013. Perspectivas Rurales Nueva Época, (26), 23–37. Van der Ploeg, J. D. (2013). Peasants and the art of farming: A Chayanovian manifesto. Winnipeg: Fernwood. Weldon, S. L. (2006). Inclusion, Solidarity, and Social Movements: The Global Movement against Gender Violence. Perspectives on Politics, 4(01), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592706060063



109



110

CHAPTER 6

HERITAGE AND PATRIMONY OF THE PEASANTRY FRAMEWORK AND ITS USE IN MEXICO TO TACKLE RURAL DEVELOPMENT 21

Fabio Alberto Pachón Ariza22 Wolfgang Bokelmann23 César Adrián Ramírez Miranda24

21

Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural SOBER, 2017. (Accepted to publication) Department of Rural Development, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia 23 Humboldt Universität zu Berlín, Albrecht Daniel Thaer-Institut für Agrar- und Gartenbauwiss, 24 Direction of Regional Centers, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Chapingo, Mexico 22



111

ABSTRACT The analytical framework “heritage and patrimony of the peasantry” and its recommended implementation theoretically provide an enhancement over previous methodologies to examine rural development. The current paper measures rural development indicators in six Mexican rural territories, and also analyses their interaction in the heritages and patrimonies of the peasantry. The principal indicators that affect the patrimonies in these regions were recognised as Pluriactivity, Social Acknowledgment, Biodiversity, and Recycling. Based on these outcomes, the indicators that belong to the Human Patrimony define it as the lowest of all the heritages of the Mexican peasantry. The analysis of the results remarks on the fact that the emphasis of public policies on productive concerns has left out complicated social problems such as the loss of identity, diversity, and culture. These matters are becoming the strongest threat affecting the Mexican peasantry to improve their quality of life while respecting their human rights. 6.2 Introduction Tackling rural development has been a complicated task for several reasons. For instance, rural development has been analysed taking into account disciplinarian points of view. Due to this segmented analysis, solving all the aspects that rural development involves has been problematic. As a possible consequence of that segmentation, comprehending rural development involves several approaches and perspectives. The stakeholders involved in those debates disagree on the best manners to tackle rural development challenges (Kay, 2005). On the other hand, historically the isolation of the countryside in many places determines their inhabitants to remain excluded from the decisions about their future (Chambers, 1983). The focus of the rural development analysis has mainly been from an economic point of view. The economic perspective puts productive activities first and privileges the forms to increase that production, and hence the growth of the household incomes. Instead, other opinions regarding rural problems suggest the inclusion of social aspects, and specifically the topic of the rights of the peasantry (Desmarais, 2008). Adding to the debate, the framework “heritage and patrimony of the peasantry” proposes that rural development should take two key points into consideration: the process to improve the quality of life for all rural inhabitants and the assurance that their rights are respected. According to Pachón, Bokelmann, & Ramirez (2016a), four general approaches have addressed rural development. The technocratic approach focused on an economic analysis, highlights agricultural productivity. The Green Revolution is the flagship of this approach as the best manner to reach rural development. The sociological approach remarks on topics regarding the individuals that live in the countryside, instead of their economic activities. The sociotechnocratic approach includes some social subjects in the economic context of rural development. That is why the socio-technocratic approach remarks on competitiveness and diversification of rural incomes. The last approach is the political one, and Food Sovereignty leads the debate regarding the inclusion of the rights of rural inhabitants in the discussion. In fact, the technocratic approach has strongly influenced both, the academic debate and public policies around the world. However, the critics of this model argue that this disciplinary and unidimensional perspective just understands a complicated situation such as rural development based on economic growth, and leaves out the discussion about several topics. As a result, alternatives to the model focus on the ideas of a holistic analysis of the rural reality, taking into consideration the intangible characteristics of the peasantry such as traditions, culture, or social interactions that go beyond the economy, and remark on a systemic approach that takes people into account beyond their productive activities. Finally, they highlight the complexity of the rurality and its inhabitants. For instance, Boisier (2003) criticises the traditional development model as it confines the development to a linear process of ‘trickling down effect’ where finally



112

the growth will include all people. Instead, he proposes a bottom-up process that starts in the base of real people based on real problems. Escobar (1998) unmakes the traditional idea of development and instead proposes several developments aimed at people who, finally, will decide the best way to reach their goals. De Sousa Santos & Meneses (2010) remark on the importance of Latin American countries to overcome the ‘Colonial mentality’ and construct their development ideas based on the power of ancient knowledge and traditions, recovering the ways of relating to nature and strengthening the values of their people. The former method to address rural development based on the disciplines is being substituted nowadays by a transdisciplinary focus, which aims to involve as many perspectives as possible to construct new forms to analyse problems, and then find more innovative solutions. The theoretical framework “Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry” is based on a transdisciplinary point of view. It integrates a way to assess the problems of rural areas into an organised structure, and hence, it privileges crucial aspects that the public policy should overcome. This paper aims to examine the indicators of rural development based on the analytical framework ‘Heritage and Patrimony of the Peasantry’, looking for the establishment of possible relationships among these indicators. For this purpose, six different regions in Mexico were surveyed. The first analysis of rural development based on the analytical framework was done in Colombia (Pachón, Bokelmann, & Ramirez, 2016c), and the current paper uses the same methodology. This research is useful to evaluate the whole method, its indicators and its analytical framework, as a contribution to addressing rural development in a broad sense. The method becomes a practical alternative for the different stakeholders interested in rural development challenges, such as governments and policy-making staffs, peasants to identify real problems, or students and academics to approach rural development in a more holistic way. 6.2 Methodology 6.2.1 Heritage and Patrimony of the Peasantry The Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry analytical framework takes the most powerful aspects of other approaches and perspectives and organises seven heritages and patrimonies that the peasantry holds for the purpose of improving their quality of life and ensuring that their rights are respected. In this context, it is important to discuss the meaning of heritage. According to Pachón, Bokelmann, & Ramirez (2016b), heritage is a network of knowledge, traditions, views, and practices that a society contemplates as vital for its history, identity and culture. Patrimonies are those structures, thoughts, and behaviours that the society obtains from its ancestors. Based on these ideas, heritage and patrimony should be assumed in a similar way, and hence they should hold the relevance to be appreciated, protected, and promoted. The analytical framework defines seven heritages: cultural, social, economic, natural, institutional, physical, and human, described in Figure 6.1. However, in the debate, it is important to discuss the reason why the use of the idea of capital is avoided, which has usually been used. The common understanding of capital is its link to a market situation, associated with the sale of assets, goods, or commodities for money. In such scenario, traditions, culture, identity, ancestral knowledge, or behaviours described as capitals, are placed in a commercial world. Nevertheless, heritage and patrimony become invaluable and uncommercial. For instance, the peasant identity is not a capital, and hence it is impossible to exchange it for money (Pachón et al., 2016b).



113

FIGURE 6.1 Description of the Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry 6.2.2 Selection of indicators Pachón, Bokelmann, & Ramirez (2015) explain the methodology to choose the indicators to evaluate rural development in a comprehensive manner. 23 rural development indicators were selected using different tools such as the Vester’s Matrix, a panel of experts, an online survey, and statistical analysis using the Principal Component Analysis. These indicators were organised into the analytical framework “Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry” (Fig. 6.2). Some indicators such as Biodiversity, Female Participation, Security, Fundamental Rights, or Social Acknowledgment belong to more than one patrimony because their spheres influence the scope of those patrimonies.



114

FIGURE 6.2 Indicators of the Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry Annexe 1 shows the indicators selected, as well as the questions that addressed key factors narrowly related to the ‘Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry’ framework. Each issue was classified into three levels: Low (1), Medium (2), or High (3) according to the answers of every interviewed. The standard of the indicators was pondered according to the responses of the questions that belong to them. Consequently, the level of the indicators could be Low (1.0 – 1.66), Medium (1.67 – 2.32), or High (2.33 – 3.0). Accordingly, the level of the Heritages is the result of the mean of the indicators that belong to every Heritage. For example, the level of the Physical Heritage is the outcome of the average of Incomes, Entrepreneurism, and Infrastructure. Equally, the levels could achieve a Low (1.0 – 1.66), Medium (1.67 – 2.32), or High (2.33 -3.0) rank. 6.2.3

Selection of regions to apply the tool

Six different regions from three different Mexican states were chosen to implement the tool (Fig 6.3). These regions were randomly selected from the places where the Programme of technical assistance has a presence, and hence agricultural activities were an important way of their inhabitants to get their livelihood. 193 face-to-face interviews were done. In the Michoacan state, 31 surveys were done in Uruapan, where avocado production is the main activity, and 31 surveys in Etucuaro, characterised by mezcal production. In the Oaxaca State, 37 surveys were done in the city of Zimatlan. Finally, in the Mexico State, 31 interviews were performed in Teotihuacan close to the archaeological site, 33 interviews were done in Tejupilco, while 30 were done in Temascaltepec.



115

FIGURE 6.3 Regions selected in Mexico 6.3 Results and discussion 6.3.1 Teotihuacan The area where the data were gathered is close to the Teotihuacan Archaeological Site. That site is visited by more than two million of people every year, which means the peasants that live nearby are strongly influenced by tourism. The positive impact of tourism is evident in the excellent infrastructure available, but it has also had an adverse effect because it is the hotel industry managed mainly by foreign investors the one that is obtaining the highest commercial revenue. Ely (2013) describes that tourism in many cases has generated a loss of identity, displacement of local cultures by foreign ones, and increases in alcoholism, domestic violence, delinquency and prostitution. However, the same author argues that the kind of tourism in Teotihuacan looks for a ‘cultural’ experience and shows respect for the place. It is precisely in



116

this scenario where the peasants interviewed are in the process to recover traditional cacti crops such as maguey, nopal, or agave. Figure 6.4 shows the results of the indicators measured and their influence over the Patrimonies of the peasantry they belong to. It is remarkable that most of the indicators got a high level, with some exceptions such as Biodiversity and Social Acknowledgment.

HERITAGE

INDICATORS

2,98

2,32

ECONOMIC HERITAGE SECURITY PLURIACTIVITY INCOMES ENTERPRENEURISM LAND TECHNICAL ADVANTAGES FOR MAIN CROPS MARKET ACCESS

NATURAL HERITAGE LAND USE BIODIVERSITY RECYCLING PLURIACTIVITY LAND TECHNICAL

HUMAN HERITAGE FEMALE PARTICIPATION SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES ON LIFE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS RURAL POLICIES

INSTITUTIONAL COMMUNAL VALUES SECURITY ADVANTAGES FOR MAIN CROPS PEASANT RURAL POLICIES MARKET ACCESS

SOCIAL HERITAGE FEMALE PARTICIPATION SOCIAL RESPECT TO BELIEFS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS PEASANT FAMILY STRUCTURE MIGRATION

PHYSICAL HERITAGE INCOMES ENTERPRENEURISM INFRASTRUCTURE

1

CULTURAL HERITAGE BIODIVERSITY FEMALE PARTICIPATION RESPECT TO BELIEFS PERSPECTIVES ON LIFE COMMUNAL VALUES FAMILY STRUCTURE MIGRATION

1,66

FIGURE 6.4 Results of Teotihuacan Ciudad de Mexico is 50 km away from Teotihuacan, that is why its influence is evident. Such influence impacts the indicator Migration that reached an average level because most of the young people are moving there looking for jobs. On the other hand, the indicator Perspective on Life got a medium level because the peasants do not have the habit of resting. They perceive the future of the countryside as tough due to economic and environmental problems, and especially because they describe that their rural community has serious problems with alcohol consumption. The Economic Heritage reached a high level, especially because the archaeological site becomes an excellent opportunity to get incomes. Even though the Migration indicator belongs to this heritage, its influence is low because the other indicators such as Access to Markets, Advantages for Markets, and Technical Assistance got a high level. The peasants interviewed argued that they have an excellent place to commercialise their products. That is why they have even started new enterprises linked to cactus crops such as agave, nopal and maguey, particularly to produce pulque. Pulque is an alcoholic beverage elaborated from the fermentation of the maguey. In ancient ages, pulque was considered as a sacred beverage. In the case of the Cultural Heritage, almost all its indicators are at a high level. For instance, Female Participation, Respect to Beliefs, or Communal Values. In contrast, Migration and Biodiversity got at a low level. Two facts call the attention in the Biodiversity indicator. On the one hand, while they argue that many animal species have been lost due to the urban expansion and the drying process of Lake Texcoco, some of the peasants point out that they have recovered many cactus species such as nopal (Opuntia vulgaris), maguey (Agave americana L), biznaga (Echinocactus), or thistle (Silybum marianum) as an alternative to generating incomes. Another interesting fact is that the peasants are recovering a traditional custom along with those plants, which is the production and consumption of the ancient beverage called pulque. Those agave species have a high value because they have been used to avoid soil erosion and to obtain the agave sap, which fermented, produces pulque. People have consumed it in Mexico since ancient times. However, at the beginning of the second decade of the last century, the



117

government released a new sanitary legislation and a tax regulation for the production of pulque, which coincides with the formation of a new beer industry, that weakened the trade of this alcoholic beverage and transformed its social value (Montes, 2014). Natural Heritage was between a medium and a high level because its indicators Land Use, Technical Assistance, Recycling, and Land Characteristics got a high level. However, Biodiversity got a low level. On the contrary, Human Heritage is the lowest patrimony in Teotihuacan. A topic associated with such level is the domestic violence pointed out in the Female Participation indicator. The interviewed argued that this problem is recurrent in rural areas, and it is mainly related to alcohol consumption, which is confirmed by a study conducted by Jaen, Aragón, Amorin, & Rivera (2015) who identified that one out of three cases of domestic violence in the Mexico State was associated with alcohol consumption by the male partner. Then, this is an example of a situation with two sides where the traditions of ancient production are recovered, but at the same time, they could generate adverse consequences for rural families. Other indicators related to Human Heritage show the perception of peasants regarding the equity of the countryside. They debated about the fact that nowadays the rural society is more inequitable than before because poverty has been rising. Equally, peasants discussed regarding the fact that in the countryside the resting habits are not usual, and they work even on Sundays. The proximity to the archaeological site and significant urban areas determined that the Institutional, Social, and Physical Heritages got a high level. For example, they enjoy high governmental offers such as infrastructure and universities, schools, and health centres in the nearby. However, such proximity undoubtedly facilitates the migration of young people and affects the indicator Pluriactivity because most of the people, men and women, that remain in the countryside are currently working full time off the farms, leaving the agricultural activities to their parents. 6.6.2

Etucuaro

The region of Etucuaro in the State of Michoacan is featured by mezcal production, a distillate of the agave, which becomes the base of its economy. Recently the region has suffered problems associated with violence. However, most of its indicators of rural development got a high level, but Recycling and Pluriactivity reached a low level. The first one, because adequate disposal practices are infrequent among Etucuaro’s peasants, and Pluriactivity because most of the people are working full time off the farms. Figure 6.5 shows the results of all the indicators of rural development and the Heritages and Patrimonies in Etucuaro. HERITAGE

INDICATORS

2,98

2,32

FIGURE 6.5 Results of Etucuaro

118

ECONOMIC HERITAGE SECURITY PLURIACTIVITY INCOMES ENTERPRENEURISM LAND CHARACTERISTICS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ADVANTAGES FOR MARKETS MAIN CROPS MARKET ACCESS

NATURAL HERITAGE LAND USE BIODIVERSITY RECYCLING PLURIACTIVITY LAND CHARACTERISTICS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

HUMAN HERITAGE FEMALE PARTICIPATION SOCIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT PERSPECTIVES ON LIFE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS RURAL POLICIES

INSTITUTIONAL HERITAGE COMMUNAL VALUES SECURITY ADVANTAGES FOR MARKETS MAIN CROPS PEASANT ORGANISATIONS RURAL POLICIES MARKET ACCESS

SOCIAL HERITAGE FEMALE PARTICIPATION SOCIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT RESPECT TO BELIEFS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS PEASANT ORGANISATIONS FAMILY STRUCTURE MIGRATION

PHYSICAL HERITAGE INCOMES ENTERPRENEURISM INFRASTRUCTURE

1

CULTURAL HERITAGE BIODIVERSITY FEMALE PARTICIPATION RESPECT TO BELIEFS PERSPECTIVES ON LIFE COMMUNAL VALUES FAMILY STRUCTURE MIGRATION

1,66

The Heritages of Etucuaro's Peasantry reached a high level, except the Human Patrimony, which reached an average level. The production of mezcal is one of the main reasons why most of the indicators got a medium to high level, and it reflects the positive influence of recovering traditional practices such as the distillation of agave. The Social Heritage got a high level with a medium tendency. The indicator Social Acknowledgement was at a medium level, because according to the interviewed, for young people in the neighbourhood to be a peasant is trifling, and even, a shame. Equally, Migration was described as a significant challenge because in all families at least one of their members has migrated to the United States. However, the indicator got a medium level because hand labour is still available in the area. Regarding the indicator Fundamental Rights, the peasants declare that access to culture is a challenge because the cultural offer in the nearby is scarce. Another concern of this indicator was the access to an old age pension. Even though the Mexican government holds subsidies to old people in rural areas, this was described as another problem by the interviewed because there are many old people in the countryside unable to work and to obtain their livelihood. Regarding the access to education, it was common to find out that the goal of young people is to migrate, instead of attending school. That is why the level of teaching was not high, and some people remain illiterate. The Institutional Heritage reached a high level, and Security was an indicator remarked by the interviewed as relevant. Even though the Michoacan State has suffered violence problems because of the presence of organised crime groups (Díaz & Pérez, 2015), the strategy of selfdefence was assessed as successful by the interviewed. However, it is important to mention that a similar strategy was carried out in Colombia against rebel groups, but the main result was an exacerbation of the rural violence (Castro, 2014). Human Heritage was the lowest patrimony in Etucuaro. Besides migration and Perspectives on Life, the indicator Rural Policies got a low level. This indicator was assessed low because the interviewed argue that they do not have any governmental support. However, it is important to mention that the Mexican government has a set of programmes to support the farmers in all the country, and obviously, Etucuaro receives that help. Regarding the indicator Perspective on Life, the peasants answered that they do not have resting habits and because they do not have an offer of other recreational activities, the only possibility of entertainment is alcohol consumption. The Natural Heritage was between a medium and a high level. The indicator Recycling was the lowest because the interviewed responded that they did not have any practice of disposal of reusable materials. On the contrary, most of them burn them. Biodiversity got a medium level because peasants overcame the times when planting agave and producing mezcal was forbidden, a fact that allowed the region to recover its ancient culture. As it was described for pulque, producing mezcal was prohibited for many years. However, nowadays it is the basis of the local incomes, and the organisation to produce it has been strengthened by a protected designation of origin (Silva & García, 2015). Growing agave again facilitates the survival of the whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus), whose population had suffered a significant decrease in this area due to agave is a critical component of its diet (Fulbright & Ortega-Santos, 2007). The Economic, Cultural, and Physical Heritages reached a high level. Even though Pluriactivity reached a low rate as a consequence of migration, it is important to note that rural enterprises to produce and commercialise mezcal are becoming strong in the region. As it has been remarked, the mezcal distillation and commerce have, in general, positive effects on several aspects of the economic, cultural, and physical heritages. However, some challenges associated with it such as alcohol consumption still remain.



119

6.6.3

Uruapan

Uruapan is located in the State of Michoacan, and it is featured as the region with the highest avocado production in the world (Martínez, Bonales, Zamudio, & Gaytan, 2011). The economy of Uruapan is mainly influenced by this crop, which means that all the value chain, the planting, transportation, agricultural supplies, commercialisation, and the like, have benefited economically from avocado. Figure 6.6 shows the level reached by the indicators of rural development and the Patrimonies of the peasantry in Uruapan. HERITAGE

2,98

INDICATORS

2,32

ECONOMIC HERITAGE SECURITY PLURIACTIVITY INCOMES ENTERPRENEURISM LAND CHARACTERISTICS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ADVANTAGES FOR MARKETS MAIN CROPS MARKET ACCESS

NATURAL HERITAGE LAND USE BIODIVERSITY RECYCLING PLURIACTIVITY LAND CHARACTERISTICS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

HUMAN HERITAGE FEMALE PARTICIPATION SOCIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT PERSPECTIVES ON LIFE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS RURAL POLICIES

INSTITUTIONAL HERITAGE COMMUNAL VALUES SECURITY ADVANTAGES FOR MARKETS MAIN CROPS PEASANT ORGANISATIONS RURAL POLICIES MARKET ACCESS

SOCIAL HERITAGE FEMALE PARTICIPATION SOCIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT RESPECT TO BELIEFS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS PEASANT ORGANISATIONS FAMILY STRUCTURE MIGRATION

PHYSICAL HERITAGE INCOMES ENTERPRENEURISM INFRASTRUCTURE

1

CULTURAL HERITAGE BIODIVERSITY FEMALE PARTICIPATION RESPECT TO BELIEFS PERSPECTIVES ON LIFE COMMUNAL VALUES FAMILY STRUCTURE MIGRATION

1,66

FIGURE 6.6 Results of Uruapan As it was described previously, Michoacan has been affected by violent conflicts, and Uruapan is not the exception. According to Aranda (2013), organized crime has taken over some avocado and blackberry farms to legalise money from drug trafficking, which evidence firstly, the incapacity of the Mexican government and its institutions to provide security to the people from Uruapan and to control these organizations, Secondly, the immense capacity of these organizations to cover all the spaces in the society to laundry their income, and finally, the stigma that falls on those who directly or indirectly work with this crop of being related to illegal activities. Some indicators such as Biodiversity, Social Acknowledgement, Peasant Organisations, and Pluriactivity got a low level. According to the interviewed, Biodiversity is severely impacted because of the process of losing forests to expand avocado crops, and similarly because of the intensive use of agrochemicals to avoid phytosanitary problems in the avocado monoculture. Equally, the Pluriactivity has been affected as well by the avocado crop because the pressure for the land has increased and hence, agriculture enterprises have been grabbing it to establish new plantations. As a consequence, peasants have had to sell their land, and look for work off the farms. It calls the attention that even though the avocado production is firmly profitable, none of the Heritages of the Peasantry in the region got a high level. The interaction of the indicators that belong to the Institutional Heritage determined its highest level. However, the indicator Communal Values, that in other regions got a high level, in Uruapan reached a medium because one of the most important features of the peasantry, solidarity among neighbours, has been lost according to the interviewed. They argue that nowadays farmers in the region prefer to work alone in order to avoid problems such as those described previously. Regarding the Advantages to Markets, the level was medium because avocado regularly has high prices, then the peasants do not need to look for new alternatives such as organic or post-harvest practices, which should



120

be a characteristic of the peasantry to access to new markets. Precisely, concerning the Market Access, almost all the production is exported to The United States, and just the second quality avocado is commercialised in the Mexican market. From the economic point of view, it is a desirable situation. Nevertheless, from the point of view of our analysis, the local and national market should be privileged for the purpose of consolidating the food sovereignty of the Mexican people. The Human Heritage is the lowest in Uruapan, similarly to all the regions interviewed. Its indicators, such as Social Acknowledgment got a low level mainly because, according to the interviewed, young people do not feel proud of agricultural activities, and they want to migrate, especially to the United States. Regarding the indicator Perspectives on Life, the level was medium due to basically the same reasons than in other regions: the resting habits of peasants and the alcohol consumption. On the other hand, the indicator Fundamental Rights is affected by the access to an old age pension. Natural Heritage, which got an average level, is perhaps the most impacted by avocado crops. The indicator Land Use is affected because an area that could be employed for diverse crops to supply Mexican people is currently used for a monoculture targeting international markets. Similarly, from the point of view of the Natural Heritage, the indicator Biodiversity is the most disturbed because the tradition of the Mexican Peasantry of growing the ‘Milpa’, has been lost in Uruapan. Milpa is a tradition to grow beans, pumpkin, and maize together, which constitute the base of the Mexican diet. The peasants answered that the tradition had been lost because the regulation of The United States has forbidden growing other plants associated to avocado for export. Equally, the indicator Land Characteristics got a medium level because nowadays the use of agrochemicals to control phytosanitary problems has risen, and environmental challenges have been reported as a consequence of it (Villaseñor, 2005). The Cultural, Physical, Social and Economic Heritages reached an average level with a high tendency. The results got by the indicators of the Economic Heritage call the attention. For instance, the indicator Incomes got a medium level because the peasants answered that they have asked for many loans because the establishment of crops is extremely expensive, the time to reach the high production is long, and they need incomes meanwhile. Instead, they use much of the incomes to pay those loans and buy agricultural supplies, and the money to save is little. Regarding the way to spend money, several of the interviewed answered that men are the ones who make the decisions about how to do it, which means that the rest of the family is left out of these choices or their opinions are ignored. The indicator Entrepreneurism was low because peasants do not look for other options to use the farms, again for the profitability of the crop. Finally, they remark that the Access to Markets has been difficult. A recurrent answer among peasants was the problems with the middlemen, who gather the avocado and do not pay the production immediately, which is usually done two months later. In some cases, peasants have even described situations in which the middlemen have not paid the production at all. Concerning the economic benefits of the avocado crop in Uruapan, Huacuja (2008) analyses the value chain and concludes that six multinational firms concentrate the higher share of the harvest profits, and emphasises on the sustainability in of this value chain the middle term, especially, because of the environmental and social impact of the crop, as it has been pointed out by the current research. 6.6.4

Zimatlan

Zimatlan is a town near the capital city of the Oaxaca State, located in Southwestern Mexico. The economy of the region interviewed is based on horticulture and sporadically small livestock farming. The data were collected in an area slightly isolated in comparison with the others regions interviewed. The area is characterised by unpaved roads and a lack of an appropriate transport network, even though is it located just 40 minutes from the town centre.



121

Figure 6.7 shows the level reached by the indicators and their impact over the patrimonies of the peasantry in Zimatlan. As in other regions, the indicators Biodiversity, Social Acknowledgment, Pluriactivity, and Advantages for Markets got a low level. The last indicator refers especially to a tendency to produce basic agricultural goods, without adding any value or specialisation in organic production. HERITAGE

INDICATORS

2,98

2,32

ECONOMIC HERITAGE SECURITY PLURIACTIVITY INCOMES ENTERPRENEURISM LAND CHARACTERISTICS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ADVANTAGES FOR MARKETS MAIN CROPS MARKET ACCESS

NATURAL HERITAGE LAND USE BIODIVERSITY RECYCLING PLURIACTIVITY LAND CHARACTERISTICS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

HUMAN HERITAGE FEMALE PARTICIPATION SOCIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT PERSPECTIVES ON LIFE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS RURAL POLICIES

INSTITUTIONAL HERITAGE COMMUNAL VALUES SECURITY ADVANTAGES FOR MARKETS MAIN CROPS PEASANT ORGANISATIONS RURAL POLICIES MARKET ACCESS

SOCIAL HERITAGE FEMALE PARTICIPATION SOCIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT RESPECT TO BELIEFS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS PEASANT ORGANISATIONS FAMILY STRUCTURE MIGRATION

PHYSICAL HERITAGE INCOMES ENTERPRENEURISM INFRASTRUCTURE

1

CULTURAL HERITAGE BIODIVERSITY FEMALE PARTICIPATION RESPECT TO BELIEFS PERSPECTIVES ON LIFE COMMUNAL VALUES FAMILY STRUCTURE MIGRATION

1,66

FIGURE 6.7 Results of Zimatlan Similarly to the other regions, the Human Heritage reached a low level. The reasons for this level are similar to the ones in the other regions: the interactions of topics described previously such as domestic violence, the tendency to migrate of young people, and the problems to access to education in rural areas, especially basic education. Regarding the education matters, it is important to remark that, even though in Zimatlan it is possible to attend a university specialised in agricultural topics, the primary and secondary education in the interviewed area is challenging because of its isolation. Nevertheless, an alternative is applied in the countryside in Mexico, which is the tele-secondary school. According to Aguirre (2015), more than one million adolescents in semi-urban and rural areas in Mexico attend the tele-secondary. In simple words, it is an educative alternative for isolated areas based on the use of television technology to offer formal education. A teacher is responsible for answering the questions after the television classes, as well as to guide the fulfilment of the learning tutorials. Even though there are several criticisms of the model, because it offers less than necessary to children who need more, it is a fact that the tele-secondary is an alternative to providing education to children that in other circumstances will drop out formal education. Indeed, in terms of knowledge and social interactions with teachers and partners, regular training shows several advantages, but it is an option to prevent people from remaining illiterate (Reyes, 2014). The Cultural, Economic, and Social Heritages reached an average level. Similarly to other regions, Natural Heritage got an average level. Nevertheless, in the current case, it is on the border with the low level. Besides the topics remarked in the other regions, the indicator Technical Assistance was highlighted by the interviewed. They argue that the quality and pertinence of the assistance could be better, and call the attention to the fact that the university in Zimatlan focuses precisely on agricultural topics, which is an opportunity to improve this concern. On the contrary, the interaction of the indicators related to Institutional Heritage accommodated it at a high level. It calls the attention that the indicator Advantages for Markets reached a low level, which could be explained by the fact described below. The Physical Heritage got the lowest level of all the regions. The area where the data were gathered is isolated, and on the contrary to other regions, the main characteristic was that the

122

roads were unpaved. According to the Secretaría de Infraestructura de Mexico (2016), the tertiary ways that communicate the countryside hold more than 200.000 km of unpaved roads, usable especially in the dry periods, and well maintained during the rainy seasons. However, it is important to remark that Mexico holds an excellent infrastructure in comparison with other Latin American countries, especially in relation to highways (WORLD BANK, 2016). Regarding this problem, the interviewed remarked the fact that, although the roads are usable almost all the time, during the rainy seasons they remain isolated because the ‘Seco’ river does not allow the transit by car, motorcycle or even by animals such as horses or donkeys. They requested the construction of a bridge over the river urgently because, for example, the children cannot attend school during those seasons. 6.6.5

Tejupilco

Tejupilco is a city located in the Southwest of the State of Mexico. It is located in an area where the agricultural activities are the most relevant economic activity. The results of the indicators and the Heritages of the Peasantry in Tejupilco are similar to the other regions (Fig. 6.8). Biodiversity, Recycling, Pluriactivity, and Advantages for Markets got a low level. On the contrary, the indicator Family Structure got the lowest level in comparison to the other places interviewed. HERITAGE

INDICATORS

2,98

2,32

ECONOMIC HERITAGE SECURITY PLURIACTIVITY INCOMES ENTERPRENEURISM LAND CHARACTERISTICS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ADVANTAGES FOR MARKETS MAIN CROPS MARKET ACCESS

NATURAL HERITAGE LAND USE BIODIVERSITY RECYCLING PLURIACTIVITY LAND CHARACTERISTICS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

HUMAN HERITAGE FEMALE PARTICIPATION SOCIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT PERSPECTIVES ON LIFE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS RURAL POLICIES

INSTITUTIONAL HERITAGE COMMUNAL VALUES SECURITY ADVANTAGES FOR MARKETS MAIN CROPS PEASANT ORGANISATIONS RURAL POLICIES MARKET ACCESS

SOCIAL HERITAGE FEMALE PARTICIPATION SOCIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT RESPECT TO BELIEFS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS PEASANT ORGANISATIONS FAMILY STRUCTURE MIGRATION

PHYSICAL HERITAGE INCOMES ENTERPRENEURISM INFRASTRUCTURE

1

CULTURAL HERITAGE BIODIVERSITY FEMALE PARTICIPATION RESPECT TO BELIEFS PERSPECTIVES ON LIFE COMMUNAL VALUES FAMILY STRUCTURE MIGRATION

1,66

FIGURE 6.8 Results of Zimatlan Physical Heritage reached a high level, but in contrast to the other regions, Institutional Heritage got a medium level. The Economic, Cultural, and Social Heritages were at a medium level with a high tendency. In the case of Tejupilco, the Natural Heritage got a medium level, for the same reasons discussed previously. Human Heritage reached an average level with a tendency to a low one, and it is interesting to discuss the level got by the indicator Perspective on life, and specifically in the matter related to medical attention during the antenatal period and after childbirth. A family interviewed had 21 pregnancies, but unfortunately, 8 of these babies died before the first year of life, which means an infant mortality rate of 38% in this family. According to Barham (2011), after the implementation of a Programme called Progresa that transfers money to the beneficiaries under the condition of attending the antenatal controls, the average infant mortality rate in the entire Mexican rural areas was 17,5 deaths per 1000 live births, which represents a 17% decline in this rate. Regarding the same indicator, coincidentally another family of a young couple with three children pointed out that at the moment of the second childbirth, the mother asked for surgery to avoid getting pregnant again. However, the Catholic priest of the neighbourhood warned her that if she had such contraceptive surgery, she would suffer cancer seven years after. Another

123

family with several children described the same story. That explains the strong influence that religion holds nowadays in rural areas, but at the same time, the lack of an adequate education programme in reproductive health with an emphasis in rural zones. There is a little academic literature regarding this specific topic. However, it is important to highlight the role of the Catholic Church in the development of rural areas in Latin America. Balduíno (2001) describes the postulates of a part of this Institution to rural problems summarising that the Church will promote the participation of peasants in farmers organisations to claim for land, a real agrarian reform, and adequate public policies to improve the quality of life for all the countryside. Nevertheless, the more conservative branch of the Catholic Church has a strong influence as well on the reproductive behaviour of its practitioners. Sorhaindo, Karver, Karver, & Garcia (2016) analyse the effect of religion on the conduct of women regarding reproductive practices focusing on abortion in Mexico. The conclusion of the research is that older, poor, and illiterate women are most influenced by the stigma of the religion at the moment of making decisions about sexual behaviour. It explains the findings in this region, but remarks that the strategy of generating fear to influence the reproductive behaviour of women could be extended to other regions of the country. 6.6.6

Temascaltepec

Temascaltepec is located at the South of the State of Mexico. Nevado de Toluca influences the entire region that is characterised by a solid agricultural production, but by a high rate of migration to The United States as well. Figure 6.9 shows the level reached by the indicators and the Heritages of the Peasantry in Temascaltepec. Biodiversity, Recycling, Pluriactivity, Technical Assistance, and Migration reached a low level. The reasons to get that level are similar to the ones in the other regions. However, particular emphasis on Migration is important, for that reason, it will be described deeply later on. HERITAGE

INDICATORS

2,98

2,32

ECONOMIC HERITAGE SECURITY PLURIACTIVITY INCOMES ENTERPRENEURISM LAND CHARACTERISTICS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ADVANTAGES FOR MARKETS MAIN CROPS MARKET ACCESS

NATURAL HERITAGE LAND USE BIODIVERSITY RECYCLING PLURIACTIVITY LAND CHARACTERISTICS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

HUMAN HERITAGE FEMALE PARTICIPATION SOCIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT PERSPECTIVES ON LIFE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS RURAL POLICIES

INSTITUTIONAL HERITAGE COMMUNAL VALUES SECURITY ADVANTAGES FOR MARKETS MAIN CROPS PEASANT ORGANISATIONS RURAL POLICIES MARKET ACCESS

SOCIAL HERITAGE FEMALE PARTICIPATION SOCIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT RESPECT TO BELIEFS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS PEASANT ORGANISATIONS FAMILY STRUCTURE MIGRATION

PHYSICAL HERITAGE INCOMES ENTERPRENEURISM INFRASTRUCTURE

1

CULTURAL HERITAGE BIODIVERSITY FEMALE PARTICIPATION RESPECT TO BELIEFS PERSPECTIVES ON LIFE COMMUNAL VALUES FAMILY STRUCTURE MIGRATION

1,66

FIGURE 6.9 Results of Temascaltepec In general terms, the entire Heritages show the same tendency as in the other regions. None of them is at a low level, and the Institutional Heritage got the highest. The Natural Heritage got a low level because of the interactions of the indicators Biodiversity, Recycling, and Technical Assistance. Taking into consideration the indicator Technical Assistance, the perception of the interviewed calls the attention because in the city, a university offers training in agricultural aspects. Besides, in Toluca, the capital city of the State, there is specialised training in agronomy and rural development.



124

Even though the indicator Migration got a low level, the Cultural and Social Heritages reached an average level. However, Migration got the lowest level from all the regions in Temascaltepec. Mexican migration to the United States has been deeply described in economic and social aspects by (Arslan & Taylor, 2012; Taylor & López-Feldman, 2010), among many other authors. Apropos, it is significant to remark the thoughts of an interviewed, Fernando, concerning his experience about migration. Fernando was six years old when his father migrated to the United States and stayed there for 14 years. At the beginning his father sent remittances, and it was good because they were able to improve their house. Despite that, Fernando was always interested in agricultural production. That is why he continued planting the Milpa along with his mother, and finally, he studied agronomy at the University. When Fernando was 13 years old, his father did not send any more remittances because he had some problems with alcohol consumption and was in jail; for that reason, Fernando was responsible for the household incomes because his mother became ill and the saved money was spent on medical treatments. Lara (2015) analyses the consequences of stories like Fernando's in society, emphasising deeply on the costs, in social terms, of the loss of the parental guidance. In many cases educated people to migrate looking for job opportunities because it is tough to get a good job in their own country. Fernando stated an explicit example of the costs for the society when he declares that regarding money and material assets, migration is good for the people who remain at home. However, the family ties are broken, and the children grow up without a complete parental guidance. He said, “It is like a society in war, without men". In many cases, but not in his, the migrants settle new families in the United States, and they never come back home again. After his father had returned, the relationship inside the family was difficult. “My papa is not my papa anymore, no one at home respects him”, he said. “Nowadays, my father does not like the agricultural production. He wants to work on other things, but not in the countryside; he lost his identity, his culture, he is a different person”. 6.7 Breaking and Convergence Points Taking into account the results of all the regions interviewed, the findings organise the discussion in themes especially linked to social concerns instead of productive matters, and four breaking points mediated by a parallelism or convergence could be described. The first breaking point is the importance of the self-recognition of the meaning of being peasants, which is related to the second aspect, the challenge of survival and the preservation of the peasantry as a culture. The third one is the concern about the proper arrangement of consumer packaging, narrowly related to environmental problems. Finally, the fourth breaking point is the acknowledgement of the loss of the diversities in the countryside. All these breaking points share a convergence point, which is that public policies are strongly related to agricultural production and leave people aside (Rivas, Bernal, & Rodríguez, 2016; Luján, 2008). Since the application of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the public policies of all the Mexican government have aimed to increase the agricultural production to be more comfortable in the new market created (Herrera, 2009; Herrera, Lutz, & Vizcarra, 2009). Clearly, the focus of the policies has been to create an atmosphere where the Mexican countryside should be able to take advantage of its conditions and reach these new consumers. In other words, the Mexican government creates a set of Programmes to support farmers through subsidies, technical assistance, training, and the like, in order to promote competitiveness. Nevertheless, all these Programmes leave the people living in the countryside in the oblivion, privileging their economic activities (Rivas et al., 2016). This is the common denominator shared by all the breaking points analysed below, and these policies are certainly the most responsible for the consequences of the current situation in the Mexican countryside. Regarding the topic of the self-recognition of the meaning of being peasants, one of the aspects inquired was about the rural youth and their relationship with the pride of feeling a peasant.



125

Most of the interviewed answered that young people are increasingly far from their peasant roots, and migrating to seek ‘better life opportunities in Mexican cities or another country’ is a generalised desire Yaschine (2015) describes the ways the public policies, in general, have improved the indicators in items such as education, nutritional condition, and health status. Nevertheless, these policies require adjustments for the purpose of increasing the level of education of the rural youth and then having the likelihood of doing rural activities better or getting better rural jobs. Furthermore, the same author points out that the young migrants got slightly better jobs than those who remain in the countryside. This highlights at least two relevant facts: On the one hand, the kind of education for rural areas should offer in its curricula topics to encourage the pride of being peasants. However, on the contrary, the public policy should break the rigidity of the economic model applied in Latin America that avoids social mobility, especially for rural inhabitants and poor people. Instead, integral public policies should seek to reduce the inequalities, offering the possibility to get adequate salaries in the countryside, and hence well-being for rural people. Along with the previous discussion, the second breaking point, the challenge of survival and the preservation of the peasantry as a culture could be analysed taking into consideration the migration from rural areas, which is a relevant concern because migration is generating an ageing process of the countryside. It is important to remark that migration is significant because it is breaking one of the main features of the peasantry, which is the importance of the family ties in the rural households. In this regard, Wanderley (2013) points out that being a peasant is a lifestyle based on the family bonds, and its economic activity, agricultural production, is built on the effort of the family members working on it. Peasant economy is distinguished from other economic activities by the social practices of association, confidence, and reciprocity, which belong to its behaviour, culture, and traditions. The end of the peasantry has been announced for an extended time. Nevertheless, the resilience and adaptability of the peasantry to new economic and productive scenarios have determined its survival (Bernstein, 2010). The current reality of the countryside shows that, besides economic and productive concerns, the peasantry is being threatened by the ageing of its population, while the migration of young members is increasing. However, at the same time some people of the urban educated middle class, featured by a certain level of incomes level, are changing their minds about the meaning of the countryside and rural inhabitants, and are trying to recover some of their traditions and ways of production as an alternative to mitigate the problems resulting from the climatic change. Such change goes beyond the acknowledgement about the importance of the peasantry, it includes new consumer behaviour, and in some cases, settlement in the countryside, as it was described in the region of Etucuaro. Despite the potential importance that migration and ageing hold for the peasantry, the interviewed described migration as a small problem in almost all the regions. Regarding this discussion, Echeverría & Fischer (2016) explain the ‘culture of migration’ in Mexico as a social accepted and even encouraged behaviour in both urban and rural Mexico, which belongs to the standard life cycle for the youth, who have seen that many members of their families have explored alternatives off the countryside (Salas & de Oliveira, 2014). Nevertheless, the interviewed identified the scarcity of hand labour in the countryside and the price that they must pay for it as a huge problem, maybe ignoring that it is a consequence of migration. That is why the indicator pluriactivity got a low level in all the regions. The third breaking point is a lightly analysed topic in the countryside: the proper arrangement of consumer packaging. This theme is becoming relevant because the consumer behaviour in rural areas is similar to the one in urban areas, which means that the amount of consumer packaging is increasing more and more, while the tradition of recycling or disposing of these materials adequately, is growing slowly. It is evident that in Latin America the culture of recycling is starting in the urban areas, while the process of appropriate management of organic and inorganic wastes is incipient in the countryside. Academic literature on the experiences of the



126

recycling process in Latin American rural areas is scarce, and just some systematised examples are remarkable (Kreiger, Anzalone, Mulder, Glover, & Pearce, 2013). Regarding this problem in Mexico, it is important to note that there is a public policy, which aims to gather a significant amount of plastic containers of agrochemicals. The initiative called the National Program of Gathering Empty Containers of Agrochemicals, and the like (PNREVAA- for its acronym in Spanish) started in 2013 (SAGARPA, 2013). However, an assessment of the impact of such Program was unavailable. According to the answers of the interviewed, they usually burn or bury plastic bags and packaging, because they have no idea how to carry out an adequate disposal process. Certainly, it is an enormous problem that is currently growing up in the countryside, and hence it should be analysed to find alternatives to solve it, focusing on the rural youth who are probably more willing to tackle with it. The final breaking point is the acknowledgement of the loss of the diversities in the countryside. The term 'diversities' is used because beyond biodiversity, which was remarked as a low-level indicator in all the regions, there is a loss of cultural diversity, represented in the rural traditions. The questions asked to assess biodiversity concerns were related to two facts: the progressive loss of traditional seeds, and the element of not seeing animals that were traditionally regarded in the countryside some years ago. Martínez, Sosa, & Álvarez (2014) deeply describe how Mexico is a valuable reserve for the biodiversity worldwide. However, according to that research, nowadays the total number of animal and plant species present in the country is unknown, which means that the rate of loss is uncertain due to the fact that an actual inventory is unavailable. Nevertheless, it is relevant to remark that it is a difficulty shared by almost all the countries that still have biodiversity richness, emphasising those from Africa and Latin America. In order to clarify this issue, it is relevant to highlight that there is ample literature specifically about the process of loss of seeds, especially in corn. But some of them call the attention because they establish a relationship between the policies and the loss of traditional seeds. There is a coincidence between the applications of the particular reforms as a result of the NAFTA, and the decrease of the total area cultivated with non-commercial varieties of corn for internal consumption such as ‘Blue Corn’ (Zea mays L.), base of the Mexican people’s food (Fox & Haight, 2010; Luján, 2008). Along with this discussion, Bartra (2009) explains clearly that beyond the importance of corn for all the Mesoamerican inhabitants, they are ‘Milpa people’. As it was discussed previously, Milpa is an old tradition of growing combined crops especially corn, beans, and pumpkins, but the mixture could contain other crops as well such as chillies or tomatoes. Bartra undoubtedly argues that in Mesoamerica the peasants do not grow corn; they cultivate Milpa, which is different. Milpa is in essence, the representation of biodiversity. Even though the area cultivated with corn is growing up in Mexico, such crop is a commercial production, with irrigation and intensive use of technology. On the other hand, the area cultivated with Milpa is decreasing and is located in regions where water is scarce and depends just on the rain. Indeed, Mexico has passed from being sovereign in corn production, to be an importer of its most outstanding food (Rubio, 2014). In this scenario, the real threat for the Mexican peasantry, beyond the public policies, the climatic change, or the subsidies schemes in developed countries, is the loss of its culture. This started when the traditional way to produce was replaced by technologies that deplete soil fertility, avoid crops combination, contaminate water, and increase the price of food. In other words, the current way to produce and the consumption behaviour of Mexican people is making them lose their diversity, from their own origin, from their own cultural plurality and the best way to understand such process is through the loss of the Milpa tradition.



127

6.8 Conclusions This paper was seeking to examine the indicators of rural development based on the analytical framework Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry, looking to establish the possible relationships among these indicators in six different regions in Mexico. From the point of view of the level reached by the indicators and their interactions in the Patrimonies of the Peasantry, the main conclusion is that the Mexican society needs to recognise the importance of its countryside and the meaning of its peasantry. Nevertheless, the rural society needs to acknowledge that the culture of the country is the peasants and the rural inhabitants as well. Such recognition should take shape in public policies that cover the economic activities of the countryside, but also give importance to the conservation of the cultural traditions of the peasantry. In other words, policies should overcome a technocratic approach to rural development, and privilege a political approach that respects the rights of all rural inhabitants. From the point of view of the methodology, the main conclusion is that the indicators and the analytical framework are able to gather the perception of the peasants to show a picture of the countryside that remarks topics that usually people overlook. Essentially, the method shows topics different to those related to the economic activities of the rural areas, highlighting aspects such as the adequate disposition of waste or reproductive behaviour, among others. However, doing a better analysis of the countryside requires a complete series of data to verify changes in time. It is also important to consider the development of a methodology to identify the possible impact that public policies have on these indicators and the patrimonies, in order to make the best decision to benefit all rural inhabitants. 6.9 References Aguirre, L. (2015). Technological resources design for ethical & civic education: the Telesecondary experience in Mexico. Teoría de La Educación; Revista Interuniversitaria, 27(1), 137. Aranda, S. (2013). Stories of drug trafficking in rural Mexico: territories, drugs and cartels in Michoacán. European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies/Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos Y Del Caribe, 43–66. Arslan, A., & Taylor, J. (2012). Transforming rural economies: migration, income generation and inequality in rural Mexico. Journal of Development Studies, 48(8), 1156–1176. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2012.682985 Balduíno T. (2001). A ação da Igreja Católica e o desenvolvimento rural. Estudos Avançados, 15, 9–22. Barham, T. (2011). A healthier start: The effect of conditional cash transfers on neonatal and infant mortality in rural Mexico. Journal of Development Economics, 94(1), 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2010.01.003 Bartra, A. (2009). Hacer milpa. Ciencias, 92(092). Bernstein, H. (2010). Class dynamics of agrarian change (Vol. 1). Winnipeg: Kumarian Press. Boisier, S. (2003). ¿ Y si el desarrollo fuese una emergencia sistémica. Revista Del CLAD Reforma Y Democracia, 27, 11–29. Castro, G. (2014). Nuestra Guerra Ajena (I). Bogotá: Editorial Planeta Colombiana.



128

Chambers, R. (1983). Rural development: Putting the last first. Routledge. Desmarais, A. (2008). The power of peasants: Reflections on the meanings of La Vía Campesina. Social Movements and Rural Politics, 24(2), 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.12.002 de Sousa Santos, B., & Meneses, M. (2010). Epistemologias do Sul. Cortez Editora. Díaz, A., & Pérez, G. (2015). Violencia y autodefensas comunitarias en Michoacán, México. Íconos-Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 19(53), 171–186. Echeverría, M., & Fischer, P. (2016). JÓVENES CON INTENCIÓN DE SALIR. CULTURA DE LA MIGRACIÓN EN ESTUDIANTES DE YUCATÁN. Península, 11(2), 9–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnsla.2016.08.001 Ely, P. (2013). Selling Mexico: Marketing and tourism values. Tourism Management Perspectives, 8, 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2013.07.003 Escobar, A. (1998). La invención del Tercer Mundo: construcción y deconstrucción del desarrollo. Editorial Norma. Fox, J., & Haight, L. (2010). Subsidios para la desigualdad. Las políticas públicas del maíz en México a partir del libre comercio. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, University of California, Santa Cruz. Fulbright, T. E., & Ortega, J. (2007). Ecología y manejo de venado cola blanca. Texas A&M University Press. Herrera, F. (2009). Apuntes sobre las instituciones y los programas de desarrollo rural en México: Del Estado benefactor al Estado neoliberal. Estudios Sociales (Hermosillo, Son.), 17, 7–39. Herrera, F., Lutz, B., & Vizcarra, I. (2009). La política de desarrollo rural en México y el cambio institucional 2000-2006. Economía, Sociedad Y Territorio, 9, 89–117. Huacuja, F. (2008). Abriendo fronteras: el auge exportador del aguacate mexicano a Estados Unidos1/Opening markets: the mexican avocado export boom to USA (Vol. 28, pp. 9–28). Presented at the Anales de Geografía de la Universidad Complutense, Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Jaen, C., Aragón, S., Amorin, E., & Rivera, L. (2015). Violencia de Pareja en Mujeres: Prevalencia y Factores Asociados. Acta de Investigación Psicológica, 5(3), 2224–2239. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2007-4719(16)30012-6 Kay., C. (2005). Enfoques sobre el Desarrollo Rural en América Latina y Europa desde Mediados del Siglo Veinte [Versión electrónica]. Institute of Social Studies de La Haya. Consultado El, 31. Kreiger, M., Anzalone, G., Mulder, M, Glover, A., & Pearce, J. (2013). Distributed Recycling of Post-Consumer Plastic Waste in Rural Areas. MRS Online Proceedings Library Archive, 1492, 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1557/opl.2013.258 Lara, J. (2015). International migration and human capital in Mexico: Networks or parental absence? International Journal of Educational Development, 41, 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2015.02.006



129

Luján, J. (2008). Desde los colores del maíz: una agenda para el campo mexicano (Vol. 2). El Colegio de Michoacán. Martínez, J., Bonales, J., Zamudio, A., & Gaytan, J. (2011). Competitiveness’s Determinants in the Avocado Export Sector’s Value Chain. Journal of Stored Products and Posthervest Research, 2(4), 59 – 63. Martínez E., Sosa, J., & Álvarez, F. (2014). El estudio de la biodiversidad en México: ¿una ruta con dirección? Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, 85, Supplement 1, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7550/rmb.43248 Montes, M. (2014). ‘Clean Pulque’ / ‘Dirty Pulque’: Disputes about legitimacy and the social production of value. Revista Colombiana de Antropología, 50(2), 41–63. Pachón, F., Bokelmann, W., & Ramirez, C. (2015). Rural Development Indicators Based on Food Sovereignty Principales: A methodology for its Selection. Presented at the 78th Annual Meeting of Rural Sociological Society. Knowing Rural: Situating the Lived Experience of Rurality in Definitions of Rural., Madison, Wisconsin. USA. Pachón, F, Bokelmann, W., & Ramirez, C. (2016a). Rural development thinking, moving from the green revolution to food sovereignty. Agronomía Colombiana, 34(2), 267–276. https://doi.org/Doi:10.15446/agron.colomb.v34n2.56639 Pachón, F., Bokelmann, W., & Ramirez, C. (2016b). Heritages of the peasantry: an analytical framework to address rural development. Presented at the 4th Biannual Conference on Nordic Rural Research, Akureyri. Pachón, F, Bokelmann, W, & Ramirez, C. (2016c). Application in Colombia of the Heritage and Patrimony of the Peasantry Framework to Address Rural Development. Presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of Rural Sociological Society, Toronto. Reyes, A. (2014). Adolescencias rurales, telesecundarias y experiencias estudiantiles. Argumentos (México, DF), 27(74), 75–93. Rivas, ., Bernal, L., & Rodríguez, A. V. (2016). LA POLÍTICA RURAL EN MÉXICO EN LA ETAPA DEL TLCAN Y SU EFECTO EN LA PRODUCTIVIDAD AGRÍCOLA DE LA REGIÓN CENTRO-NORTE DEL PAÍS (Vol. 9, pp. 1001–1018). Presented at the Memorias del Congreso de la Red Internacional de Investigadores en Competitividad. Rubio, B. (2014). El dominio del hambre: crisis de hegemonía y alimentos. Universidad Autónoma Chapingo. Colegio de Postgraduados. Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas. Juan Pablos Editor. SAGARPA. (2013). Sin envases vacíos, seguro hay ¡campo limpio! Retrieved from https://www.gob.mx/sagarpa/articulos/sin-envases-vacios-seguro-hay-campo-limpio?idiom=es Salas, M., & de Oliveira, O. (2014). Los caminos de la vida: acumulación, reproducción o superación de las desventajas sociales en México. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas Y Sociales, 59 (220), 81–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0185-1918(14)70802-5 Secretaría de Infraestructura de Mexico. (2016, December 17). Infraestructura: Datos Abiertos para el desarrollo de la infraestructura como pieza clave para incrementar la competitividad. Retrieved from http://datos.gob.mx/categoria/infraestructura



130

Silva, V., & García, Y. C. (2015). MICHOACAN MEZCAL: ORIGEN AND COMERCIALIZATION (Vol. 10, p. 1364). Presented at the Global Conference on Business & Finance Proceedings, Institute for Business & Finance Research. Sorhaindo, A., Karver, T., Karver, J., & Garcia, S. (2016). Constructing a validated scale to measure community-level abortion stigma in Mexico. Contraception, 93(5), 421–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2016.01.013 Taylor, J., & López, A. (2010). Does migration make rural households more productive? Evidence from Mexico. The Journal of Development Studies, 46(1), 68–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380903198463 Villaseñor, G. (Editora). (2005). La biodiversidad en Michoacán: Estudio de caso. Mexico: Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Secretaría de Urbanismo y Medio Ambiente, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo. Wanderley, M. (2013). Agricultura familiar e campesinato: rupturas e continuidade. Estudos Sociedade E Agricultura, 1. WORLD BANK. (2016, December 17). The World Bank Data by Country. Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/country/mexico?view=chart Yaschine, I. (2015). ¿Alcanza la educación para salir de la pobreza? Análisis del proceso de estratificación ocupacional de jóvenes rurales en México1. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas Y Sociales, 60(223), 377–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0185-1918(15)72142-2



131



132

CHAPTER 7

PARTICIPATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC POLICIES ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN COLOMBIA AND MEXICO25

Fabio Alberto Pachón Ariza26 Wolfgang Bokelmann27 César Adrián Ramírez Miranda28

25

International Journal of Rural Development- Cuadernos de Desarrollo Rural. (Accepted to publication) Department of Rural Development, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia 27 Albrecht Daniel Thaer-Institut für Agrar- und Gartenbauwiss. Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany 28 Direction of Regional Centers, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Chapingo, Mexico 26



133

ABSTRACT The participation of stakeholders in the design and application of rural development policies is one of the major concerns of decision makers. The Framework for Participatory Impact Assessment (FoPIA) is a methodology to measure the impact of policies, which could include different stakeholders. This paper used FoPIA to assess the impact of rural development policies in Mexico and Colombia. The results showed a positive influence in the case of Mexico, whereas, in Colombia, just one of the policies showed positive results. In both cases, social themes were remarked in order to take them into account at the moment of designing rural development policies. 7.4 Introduction Rural development has been described as a complex or ‘wicked’ problem because it involves many challenges and engages many people. Rural development is hard to tackle because it has been inadequately understood due to all the connections among its problems. The actors interested usually differ in the best manner to address and manage rural development concerns; that is why the policy-makers of rural development have been unable to solve all the issues involved. In such scenario, tackling rural development needs a systematic process. Making a systematic attempt to deal with complex problems such as rural development is a challenge for policy-makers, academics, students, and professionals. A standard process (Fig 7.1) should start with a comprehensive analysis, and hence, the complete understanding of the entire problem. Once that step has been carried out, the next one is the characterisation of the causes and consequences of rural development issues. In order to do so, it is necessary an analytical framework that integrates as many elements of the rural development problems as possible. The next two steps should be the construction of a strategy and its application, usually based on indicators, to identify what is occurring in the rural territories. Thereafter, the next step is the assessment of the possible impact of public policies on the countryside, usually taking into account the indicators defined previously. It aims to identify the best public policy option to be executed in the territories. The final step, after the implementation of the policy, is the monitoring and evaluation of the results of that execution. This step is usually carried out years after the implementation of the public policy. As a result, new problems must be identified, and frequently the process starts again with new challenges to be solved (Australian Public Service Commission, 2012; Probst & Bassi, 2014; Vennix, 1999).



134

FIGURE 7.1 Public policy cycle

According to the previous scheme of the cycle of public policy, an analysis of the rural development perspectives shows a lack of a comprehensive approach to tackling a wicked problem such as rural development. Pachón, Bokelmann, & Ramirez, (2016a) describe the strengths and weaknesses of the main approaches and their perspectives to put forward the Political Approach represented by the Food Sovereignty Perspective. The next step in the cycle corresponds to the proposal of an analytical framework called Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry, which remarks seven heritages: Social, Cultural, Human, Institutional, Economic, Natural, and Physical, that involve the traditions, mores, identity, knowledge, and practices of the peasantry. The level of these heritages determines the level of rural development in a territory (Pachón, Bokelmann, & Ramirez, 2016b). The analytical framework understands rural development as the process to improve the quality of life while respecting the rights of all rural inhabitants. Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry take the main thoughts of the major rural development approaches but is especially based on the Food Sovereignty Perspective, which takes the idea of the acknowledgement of the rights of rural people as the centre of the rural development discussion. The fundamental characteristic of the framework is a multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary methodology that allows taking into consideration the opinions of as many stakeholders involved in the rural debate as possible (Fig. 7.2).



135

FIGURE 7.2 Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry

The next step in the cycle of a public policy aims to select the indicators that will describe the current condition of the seven patrimonies described previously. These indicators were chosen through a structured methodology that allowed establishing the most relevant aspects of the rural development discussion. The method started with a comprehensive literature review to organise the first list of indicators, which later on was adjusted in a set of 87 relevant topics according to the relationship between them. Then, a panel of experts assessed all the subjects using the methodology of the Vester’s Matrix, after which 37 indicators remained. In the next selection phase, the indicators were graded according to the characteristics of a good indicator using an online survey, and these results were interpreted statistically using a Principle Component Analysis (Pachón, Bokelmann, & Ramirez, 2015). Finally, a set of 23 indicators was selected (Fig 7.3).



136

FIGURE 7.3 Rural Development Indicators

Following the cycle of public policy, the next step was the application of the set of indicators and the analysis of the findings based on the analytical framework Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry. The application was carried out in twelve different regions, six from Colombia and six from Mexico. In Colombia, the results showed a low level in the Physical, Natural, and Human Patrimonies based on 207 face-to-face interviews. The isolation of rural areas located far away from the principal cities was determinant at the moment of accessing to governmental services; that is why, topics such as infrastructure, technical assistance, or education were scarce in those areas. On the contrary, the rural areas in the nearby of principal cities had an adequate availability of governmental services, and hence, better access for instance to markets, health services, and education. A crucial aspect was the challenge of topics regarding the Natural Heritage. In relation to it, the peasants remarked problems such as aerial fumigation of illegal crops and its consequences (Pachón, Bokelmann, & Ramirez, 2016d). In the case of Mexico, 193 face-to-face interviews were carried out. Natural and Human Heritages were classified at a low level. It was remarkable that the Mexican peasantry of two regions interviewed was recovering their traditions, finding in such process economical alternatives to get incomes. However, that process was creating problems related to alcohol consumption, and consequently, domestic violence. Migration was highlighted as a huge problem in rural areas, because young people prefer to look for job options in other countries, instead of working on their farms. The results showed that a profitable crop such as avocado has a positive impact on some rural development indicators, and hence, on the heritages, but at the same time, it has an adverse effect on some others. In other words, the presence of a crop that holds obvious economic advantages in a region does not mean that heritages such as the Natural, Cultural or Social Patrimonies get a high level (Pachón, Bokelmann, & Ramirez, 2016c). The application of the analytical framework and the indicators open a gap to fill in the decisionmaking cycle, which is the assessment of the impact of public policies on the indicators, and hence, on the patrimonies of the peasantry. In such context, this paper aims to identify the potential implications of some public policies on the rural development indicators and Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry in Colombia and Mexico, and as a consequence it intends to recognise the underlying effects in the process of improving the quality of life and the respect for the rights of all rural inhabitants. In other words, the possible impact on the rural development level. The findings of the current research will be useful for the stakeholders involved in rural challenges. For instance, peasants could be able to identify the potential impact of policies on



137

their life and then participate in the construction of public policies that take into consideration their opinions regarding rural development tasks. On the other hand, the methodology would be practical for the government because it allows identifying the perception of the rural actors regarding the policies proposed. Equally, it will be beneficial to professors, students, and research centres of universities because it is an alternative to analyse rural development problems taking into consideration the potential impacts of policies. 7.5 Methodology The current research uses the Framework for Participatory Impact Assessment (FoPIA) to identify the potential impact of public policies on the rural development indicators and Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry in Mexico and Colombia. Morris, Camilleri, & Moncada (2008) describe FoPIA as a method that allows the assessment of potential impacts of policies at the national, regional or local level, and it is an opportunity to bring the knowledge and expertise of the stakeholders involved in agricultural policies into a rational debate. FoPIA has been used to conduct impact assessments of participation-based policies at a case study level using stakeholder and expert information. Similarly, it has been widely used to evaluate the impact of land use policies at a regional and local level (Bezlepkina, Brouwer, & Reidsma, 2014; König et al., 2010, 2013) as well as to assess sustainability policies at a national level (Morris et al., 2011; Purushothaman et al., 2013). Figure 7.4 shows a scheme of the methodology used, which was organised in three phases. 7.2.1 First phase The first phase, described previously, consisted of the construction of a baseline of rural development indicators examined with the Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry analytical framework in Mexico and Colombia (Pachón et al., 2016d, 2016c)

FIGURE 7.4 Scheme of the Framework for Participatory Impact Assessment (FoPIA)

7.2.2 Second phase The second phase starts with the definition of the policy scenarios that will be assessed by the stakeholders. Table 7.1 shows the three policy scenarios for each country.



138

TABLE 7.1 Policy scenarios defined in Mexico and Colombia

COUNTRY

POLICY SCENARIOS

Scenario I: Commercialisation and Market Development Programme

MEXICO

Scenario II: Integral Rural Development Programme

Scenario III: Support to Productivity to Entrepreneur Women Programme (PROMETE – in Spanish)

COLOMBIA

Scenario I: Policies of Colombian Development Plan 2014-2018

Scenario II: Zones of Interest for Rural and Economic Development

DESCRIPTION The Programme aims to provide greater certainty in the food business through risk management mechanisms, support to commercialisation, and export promotion; thereby contributing to the planning and development of markets for agricultural, fishery and aquaculture products. The target population of the programme is those Mexican farmers, whose main activity is related to production, process, packing, commercialisation, or promotion of Mexican agricultural products, including ornamental plants and traditional Mexican food ingredients. The programme holds six kinds of incentives: 1. The administration of the market risks. 2. Storage, freight, and financial costs. 3. The increase of production. 4. Specific commercialisation problems. 5. Quality certification. 6. Modernisation of marketing infrastructure (SAGARPA, 2015) The Programme seeks to increase agricultural production through incentives to buy agricultural supplies, for the construction of infrastructure, and to purchase new productive equipment. Also, through the implementation of practices to take sustainable advantage of water and soil, holistic projects of productive development, the development of capabilities and professional services for rural innovation, the strengthening of peasant organisations and schemes to support damages after natural disasters. The target population, in general, is women and elderly people in a condition of food vulnerability, low-income and small-scale farmers (SAGARPA, 2015). The Programme aims to impel the productivity of entrepreneur women older than 18 years, which live in Mexican rural areas, preferably landless, through incentives to invest in productive projects. The support, in general, goes to agricultural and livestock projects led by women (SAGARPA, 2015) Policies of the Colombian Development Plan aim to transform the countryside. Five axes are the basis of the Plan: 1. Poverty reduction and the expansion of the rural middle class. 2. Improving rural competitiveness. 3. Institutional strengthening. 4. Territorial planning and access to land. 5. Social mobility to close the gap between rural and urban areas (Congreso de la República de Colombia, 2015). ZIDRES seeks to promote productive projects to stimulate foreign capital investment in agriculture and allow the creation of associative schemes to facilitate the productivity of thousands of hectares throughout the Colombian

139

(ZIDRES – in Spanish)

Scenario III: Towards a New Colombian Countryside. Integral Rural Reform

countryside. This policy is proposed because the small farmers do not always have the likelihood to develop sustainable productive projects that contribute to the economic and social progress of their family by just owning the land. Then, farmers sell their land because of the lack of production incentives and which interferes with their development and production (Congreso de la República de Colombia, 2014). This policy, in the context of the peace agreements between the Colombian government and Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia – Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC-EP), seeks to solve the historical causes of the Colombian internal conflict such as the unresolved issue of land ownership, and particularly its concentration, the exclusion of the peasantry and the backwardness of rural communities. It looks for a structural transformation of the countryside, and then it proposes strategies to promote the fair and sustainable use of the soils. Equally, it encourages the formalization, restitution and an equitable distribution of the land, ensuring a continuous access to its ownership to rural people and particularly to women and the most vulnerable population, regulating and democratizing ownership and promoting decentralisation of the land in fulfilment of its social function (Delegados del gobierno de la República de Colombia y las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia FARC-EP, 2014).

The next step is the impact assessment of the policies on the rural development indicators. Afterwards, the stakeholders were requested to assess the potential implications the policies would have on the indicators according to their knowledge and expertise. Annexe 1 shows the rural development indicators and criteria used to evaluate the impact. The impact has been evaluated according to the scale using an online survey software (Table 7.2). TABLE 7.2 Scale to assess policy scenarios ASSESSMENT +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3

7.2.3

IMPACT Very positive impacts Positive impacts Just some positive impacts No impacts Just some negative impacts Negative impacts Very negative impacts

Third Phase

The last phase was to analyse the results of the impact assessment completed by the participants. The analysis was done initially on the indicators and then on the heritages and patrimonies of the peasantry in both countries. Later, a comparison with the baseline from each country was carried out to verify the impact of the policies and then to structure the recommendations in order to improve the quality of life while respecting the rights of all rural inhabitants. 7.3 Results and discussion Table 7.3 shows, the number of participants in the online survey organised in four different groups. Summing up, 609 stakeholders, 297 from Mexico and 312 from Colombia, graded the impact of the policies.

140

TABLE 7.3 Participants in Mexico and Colombia

PEASANTS ACADEMICS STAFFS PROFESSIONALS 7.3.2

MEXICO 54 90 78 75

COLOMBIA 55 94 80 83

Mexico

7.3.2.1 Impact assessment on rural development indicators Figure 7.5 shows the impact assessment defined by the participants in the survey. In general terms, all the indicators had a positive impact in all the three scenarios. In the case of the indicator Pluriactivity, the positive impact was minimum, and the level remained almost equal to the baseline. According to the participants, none of the policies will influence members of the family to stay working off the farm. However, the impact of the indicator Migration was positive, narrowly related to Pluriactivity. LAND USE

5

INFRASTRUCTURE MARKET ACCESS

BIODIVERSITY RECYCLING

4

MIGRATION

FEMALE PARTICIPATION

3 FAMILY STRUCTURE

SOCIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT

2 1

RURAL POLICIES

RESPECT TO BELIEFS

0

PEASANT ORGANISATIONS

PERSPECTIVES ON LIFE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

COMMUNAL VALUES

MAIN CROPS

SECURITY

ADVANTAGES FOR MARKETS

PLURIACTIVITY

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE LAND CHARACTERISTICS

INCOMES ENTERPRENEURISM

BASE LINE SCENARIO I SCENARIO II SCENARIO III

FIGURE 7.5 Impact results on rural development indicators in Mexico

The indicator Perspectives on Life had a slightly positive incidence in the three scenarios, and it was higher in scenario III with the Programme PROMETE. The topics assessed for this indicator were the habits of resting in rural areas, the perspective about the future of rural areas, alcohol consumption, and attention to women during pregnancy and after childbirth. The last criterion had the most positive impact on scenario III, which is focused on rural women. On the other hand, some indicators narrowly related to productive aspects were positively impacted, for instance, Main Crops, Advantages for Markets, Technical Assistance, Land Characteristics, Incomes, Peasant Organisations, Entrepreneurism, and Infrastructure. It is a logical consequence of policies focused mainly on productive aspects. However, it is important to remark that in general, public policies in Mexico regarding rural areas and promoted by the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fishery and Food (SAGARPA – in Spanish) are focused on productive aspects.



141

The social and environmental aspects of rural development indicators reached a slightly positive impact, perhaps explained by the previously discussed fact that the focus of policies is in productive and economic aspects. However, it is important to remark that one of the most critical rural development indicators, Biodiversity, graded as lowest in the baseline, reached an improvement in the three scenarios. Scenario II, Integral Rural Development Programme, was slightly more positive than the other scenarios. However, the difference between the PROMETE Programme and scenario II was minimum, but according to the participants, the positive impact is trifling to make contributions to recover peasant traditions. 7.3.2.2 Impact assessment on heritage and patrimonies of the peasantry framework Figure 7.6 shows the impact of the policies on the Heritages of the Mexican Peasantry. As a whole, the three policy scenarios positively impacted the heritages. Physical and Institutional Heritages were the most positively impacted. On the other hand, Human Heritage, which was the lowest assessed at the baseline, reached a remarkable improvement in its level. On the contrary, in the case of the Natural and Cultural Heritages, the impact was positive but slightly lower than on the other heritages. CULTURAL HERITAGE

4 3

ECONOMIC HERITAGE

PHYSICAL HERITAGE

2 1 0 NATURAL HERITAGE

SOCIAL HERITAGE

HUMAN HERITAGE

BASE LINE

INSTITUTIONAL HERITAGE

SCENARIO I

SCENARIO II

SCENARIO III

FIGURE 7.6 Impact results on the patrimonies of the peasantry in Mexico

7.3.2.1.1 Scenario I: Commercialisation and market development programme In simple words, the goal of the Programme is to support peasants in all the topics regarding commercialisation. In general, the programme of the current scenario got the lowest positive impact on almost all the indicators, and hence its effect on the Heritages of the Mexican Peasantry was minimal in comparison to the other scenarios. It is interesting to find out that two indicators, whose emphasis is the markets, got a similar impact to the one obtained in the other scenarios. This means that the perception of the participants about the influence of the programme on its central objective, which is commercialisation, was understood as not significantly important. It is possible that such perception of the participants in the online survey was influenced by academic analysis (Fox & Haight, 2010; Rubio, 2014) and press releases (Ramírez, 2014). According to Agencia de Servicios a la Comercialización y Desarrollo de Mercados Agropecuarios -ASERCA (2015), corn, coffee, sorghum, and cotton were the most benefited crops by this programme.



142

Ramírez (2014) analyses the main beneficiaries of the Programme and remarks on the kind of final recipient of the subsidies. Firstly, more than 90% of the Mexican peasants do not have the possibility to receive such support, which continues to be concentrated on ‘medium and big farmers'; and secondly, several transnational food companies such as Cargill, Gamesa, Bimbo, and Bunge became beneficiaries of these grants. The phenomenon is explained by Rubio (2012), who deeply analyses the model of exploitation and exclusion of the peasants in Latin America, focusing on the Neoliberal era. She clearly explains the evolution of the policies that currently privilege the agro-export business instead of the small-scale and peasant production due to the governmental policies, especially those that allow the capture of grants by transnational food companies. 7.3.2.1.2

Scenario II: Integral rural development programme

The main goal of this Programme is to increase agricultural production, looking for the modernisation of the backyard farming located in peri-urban areas and arid zones through technical assistance to promote innovative production. It also aims to stimulate the sustainable use of soil and water through the coordination to integrate different projects in the areas of influence. Finally, it seeks to integrate rural organisations and other similar civil society groups, especially to strengthen value chains. In such outline, the results obtained on the indicator related to the increment of agricultural productivity, which is main crops, were overcome by scenario I. However, scenario II got the highest level of improvement in two indicators directly related to the improvement of production: land characteristics and land use. Equally, the indicator technical assistance got a superior level in the other scenarios. On the other hand, the impact on the Patrimonies shows a slight increment in some of them. For instance, Natural Patrimony got the highest improvement, followed by the Economic Heritage. However, the differences between the scenarios are trifling. Despite the current positive assessment, according to (Luján, 2008), policies like these traditionally have had an insignificant capacity to increase agricultural production, and hence are irrelevant to generate a social change because their strategy avoids attacking inequalities in rural areas. In the same direction, Rivas., et al. (2016) describe that Mexico, in a period of fewer than 30 years, has passed from exporting to importing most of the basic food, especially corn, which is the base of the Mexican diet. Mendoza (2015), remarks the urgency to keep up the times of institutionality and production. She argues that one of the causes why the policy shows trifling results is because the aid arrives when the crop cycles are over, generating problems such as access to expensive credits to cover the needs of production. 7.3.2.1.3.

Scenario III: Support to productivity to entrepreneur women programme (PROMETE – in Spanish)

The Programme assessed in scenario III aims to increase agricultural productivity accompanying rural women to strengthen or start a new productive enterprise. In general terms, it is important to remark that a public policy to support entrepreneurs focused on women will bring extra benefits such as additional family incomes, creating employment alternatives, diversification in the rural economy, and more importantly, close the gap in the rural public policy that traditionally has focused on men (Trigueros & Prieto, 2016). On the other hand, women’s entrepreneurship brings a message to children since it demonstrates with positive examples the successful participation of women in the professional, economic and productive life. It calls the attention that according to the assessment made by the participants, scenario III did not get a high impact level in all the indicators, despite the benefits described previously. In comparison with the other scenarios, the indicators directly related to women such as female participation, family structure or entrepreneurism got a slightly superior assessment. Similar



143

results are evident in the case of the patrimonies. In general terms, all the patrimonies of scenario III got the same impact assessment that scenario II. Just social, physical and human patrimonies reached slightly better results, and coincidentally, these heritages are focused on non-productive themes, which is the goal of the Programme. Vargas (2016) evaluated the PROMETE Programme and based on the analysis of some study cases the author highlighted that the main weakness of the beneficiary groups was the lack of (administrative knowledge. Technical practice and organisation skills were found as strengths of these groups. However, the lack of a long-term vision, derived from management experience, was a key point to determine that the groups created with the support of PROMETE Programme did not survive for a while after the influence of the policy finalised. The results of the FoPIA methodology applied in Mexico show a positive impact of the policies analysed on the baseline of indicators and patrimonies, which evidence a remarkable improvement in all of them. However, it is important to remark that in general the rural public policies of the Mexican government have focused on productive matters looking for the improvement of the competitiveness of the agricultural sector in the frame of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). According to Herrera (2009), as a result of the application of the NAFTA, the subsidies and support scheme of the Mexican agricultural policies were dismantled and replaced by a series of Programmes concentrated on technical concerns. The current Mexican policies have a Neostructuralist orientation because they aim to open agricultural markets, encouraging both national and foreign private investment, trying to take advantage of the competitive possibilities of the Mexican countryside. However, these programmes put the relevant concerns about the political power of the countryside in a second place, and avoid to provide political spaces and more importance to the peasantry at the local, territorial, and national level (Mendoza, 2015). Despite the positive results considered by the participants, contradictions between national assessment and the academic point of view regarding the real impact of the policies are evident. While official reports (CONEVAL & SAGARPA, 2015) inform about the high coverage of different Programmes, (Ramírez, 2014) remarks that the Mexican policy has left out more than 90% of the small farmers, because the target of those policies is the farmers that hold characteristics to improve production. Regarding this discussion (Rivas et al., 2016) show that 10% of the biggest food companies have gotten between 50% to 80% of the agricultural subsidies, that is why positive results are evident in those areas where irrigation is available. On the other hand, (Zarazúa, Almaguer & Ocampo, 2011) demonstrated that for smallholders the subsidies received, which are not high, became 40% of the total agricultural incomes. That is why peasants have had to look for other options to earn their livelihoods such as migrating to other places. Improving the impact of public agricultural policies in Mexico needs some essential elements. An example is focusing on themes that go beyond agricultural production, which means a longterm vision, but taking into account the participation of peasants in the definition of these policies is even more relevant. Such approach will allow getting over the isolation of rural inhabitants, and hence, avoiding that the Mexican countryside is left alone. 7.3.3

Colombia

7.3.3.1 Impact assessment on rural development indicators Figure 7.7 shows the evaluation of the rural development indicators done by the Colombian participants. Initially, it is important to remark that all the indicators in the case of scenario III were assessed with a positive impact in comparison with the baseline. In contrast, the indicators in the event of scenario I were graded with negative consequences. Whereas the results of



144

scenario II show a positive influence on some indicators, others conserve the same level than the baseline, and others show negative outcomes. LAND USE

INFRASTRUCTURE

5

MARKET ACCESS

BIODIVERSITY RECYCLING

4 MIGRATION

FEMALE PARTICIPATION

3 FAMILY STRUCTURE

SOCIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT

2 1

RURAL POLICIES

RESPECT TO BELIEFS

0

PEASANT ORGANISATIONS

PERSPECTIVES ON LIFE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

COMMUNAL VALUES

MAIN CROPS

SECURITY

ADVANTAGES FOR MARKETS

PLURIACTIVITY

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

INCOMES

LAND CHARACTERISTICS

BASE LINE

ENTERPRENEURISM

SCENARIO I

SCENARIO II

SCENARIO III

FIGURE 7.7 Impact results on rural development indicators in Colombia

A general evaluation shows interesting topics such as the indicator Communal Values, represented by the idea of solidarity, which reaches a similar level in scenarios I and II in comparison with the baseline. However, the positive impact of that indicator in scenario III was significant, reaching one of the highest scores of all the indicators assessed. The indicator Peasant Organisations showed similar results, which got the highest positive impact on all the indicators based on the advantages that scenarios II and especially III would create to those organisations. The topics inquired to assess the indicator Land Use were soil conservation practices, the property of the land, and kind of production on the farm. According to the answers, the indicator reached a high impact in Scenario III, while it has been particularly low in comparison with the baseline in the other scenarios. On the contrary, Pluriactivity was the indicator that got the lowest level of improvement in scenario III, while the level in the other scenarios was lower than in the baseline. The topics of this indicator were related to members of rural families working off their own farms. 7.3.3.2 Impact assessment on heritage and patrimonies of the peasantry framework The results obtained by the indicators go in accordance with the impact that they have on the Heritages of the Colombian Peasantry, and the tendency described previously remains (Figure 7.8). Scenario III presents a strong positive impact on all the Heritages; while scenario I got a negative impact in all the Heritages in comparison with the baseline. The results of scenario II show a significant improvement in the Physical Heritage while a minor adverse impact on Cultural Heritage. The other Heritages either remain at a similar level or slightly higher than the baseline.



145

CULTURAL HERITAGE

4 3

ECONOMIC HERITAGE

PHYSICAL HERITAGE

2 1 0 NATURAL HERITAGE

SOCIAL HERITAGE

INSTITUTIONAL HERITAGE

HUMAN HERITAGE

BASE LINE

SCENARIO I

SCENARIO II

SCENARIO III

FIGURE 7.8 Impact results on the patrimonies of the peasantry in Colombia

7.3.2.2.1 Scenario I: Policies of Colombian Development Plan 2014-2018 The level obtained by the indicators in Scenario I moves down the level of all the Patrimonies of the Peasantry, and probably, the assessment made by the participants was permeated by the complex social conditions evidenced by the actions of peasants and farmers calling for solutions to rural inhabitants problems. In Colombia, the public policies and the centralised governments have traditionally excluded peasants and small farmers, generating a huge distance between bureaucrats and rural people (Bernstein, 2010; Rubio, 2012). In Colombia, the design and implementation of public policies for the countryside are the responsibility of the head of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) and its subordinated institutions. However, even though the Institutional Heritage was the best scored of the patrimonies, according to (Machado, 2009) the weaknesses of the Colombian institutionality are evident. Some of these limitations are, for instance, that many of the people entrusted with the application of policies have short contracts and sometimes the experience could be better to that important task. Another classical example is that programmes and grants do not have a long-term target, and usually are assigned by public calls, which exclude small farmers and peasants; even worse, the MADR has suffered a decrease in its annual budget because all these grants were not assigned. Most of the countries support and protect their agriculture, however, in Colombia, policies have a neoliberal tendency, which just protects selected crops such as sugar cane, oil palm, or coffee. The countryside needs, beyond subsidies, policies of public investment in education, roads, health, and participation seeking to overcome the ‘social discontent’ derived from the enormous gap between urban and rural spaces and to generate a social acknowledgement. It also requires public investments in roads, electricity, irrigation and drainage, and technical assistance to increase productivity to improve family income (Montaña, 2002). 7.3.2.2. Scenario II: Zones of Interest for Rural and Economic Development (ZIDRES – in Spanish) In comparison with the baseline, the level obtained by the indicators in Scenario II shows that the level of Cultural Patrimony decreases, the Economic, Physical, and Institutional Heritages increase and the Human, Natural and Social Patrimonies maintain almost the same degree.



146

According to the results, the application of the ZIDRES law will bring positive consequences for the countryside in the zones it operates. The indicators connected to the patrimonies narrowly related to productive matters (Economic, Physical, Institutional), show an optimistic panorama, which is possibly explained by the fact that the ZIDRES areas are remote and featured by high costs to reach a successful production, poor infrastructure, and weak institutions (Eslava, 2015). This means that any investment will really improve the difficult conditions of isolation of some of these areas. In contrast, the indicators of the patrimonies related to non-productive concerns (Cultural, Social, Human, and Natural) show a different panorama. A possible explanation for this paradoxical result could be explained precisely by the same reason argued previously, the isolation of the countryside. In essence, with the ZIDRES law, the government will leave these responsibilities in private and foreign hands. Hence, the outsiders, often distant from the goals, traditions, and culture of the people who have been living in the country for years, in a kind of a modern feudalism will make the decisions about production practices, environmental management, or market targets, based just on their economic perspective. The ZIDRES law avoids to overcome the problem of the land tenure and even creates the conditions to aggravate the land-grabbing problem in Colombia described by Grajales (2015) because it allows concentrating the wasteland (Baldíos) in the hands of foreign investors, which goes against the Colombian National Constitution (Uribe, 2016). Interestingly, in this model, the production of these areas could support the food security of the nations of origin of the investing companies instead of supporting the Colombian food sovereignty. 7.3.3.3 Scenario III: Towards a new Colombian countryside. Integral rural reform As a result of the participants’ perception, the level of all the indicators increases in scenario III, possibly due to the fact that the social base of FARC-EP is the peasantry, especially those who live isolated and forgotten by the government areas, and consequently, the peace agreement should solve most of the problems of those people (Caballero-Fula, 2016). The positive results in all the Patrimonies show that for the first time in many years, the Colombian government recognises the structural backwardness of rural areas (Buitrago, 2016), and as a consequence, it proposes a plan to tackle these problems, based on the access to governmental services. In other words, the presence of the Colombian institutions in rural areas will overcome the military control, and will focus on programmes of infrastructure (e.g. construction of tertiary roads, irrigation and drainage, electricity, and clean water), social attendance (e.g. rural health, housing, and education), and agricultural production (e.g. technical assistance, land tenure, support, credits, and marketing). Despite the fact that the Institutional Patrimony reached the highest level, and that the weakness of the institutions is one of the most relevant problems of the rural sector, it is not clear how such an ambitious plan can be carried out based on the same institutions and staff. In fact, the Integral Rural Reform covers most of the rural problems. However, several doubts about the successful application of the programmes remain because the same institutions that kept the countryside isolated in the past will be in charge of carrying out the actions to improve rural conditions. On the other hand, the ways to fund all the programmes are unclear, especially in the middle of an economic recession, with low international oil prices, and a high exchange rate. The results of the FoPIA methodology applied in Colombia show a symbolic effect of a change in politics. In other words, the participants perceive and assess new and fresh ideas as positive to implement alternative solutions to the countryside problems. This symbolism of change represented in scenarios II and III reach, in general, an improvement in the level of the indicators and patrimonies assessed. On the contrary, the idea of continuity, to keep doing things the same way they have always been done, as in scenario I, is graded negatively in all the



147

indicators, and hence, in the patrimonies. It is the recognition of the failure of public policies for rural development applied in Colombia in the last years, especially those that aim to improve topics related to non-productive concerns such as education, health services, roads, or electricity. On the other hand, it is striking that despite the fact that scenarios II and III are contradictory, both were graded with a positive impact on almost all the topics assessed. On the one hand, there is the ZIDRES policy, which seeks to encourage private investments as the way to improve agricultural production and infrastructure under the supervision of the government, in a kind of neostructuralist approach. On the other hand, we find the Integral Rural Reform, which aims to recognise the problems of the peasant agriculture and offers programmes to solve them through substantial public investments with an orientation based on a territorial point of view (Azuero, 2015). Likewise, the results allow recognising that regarding public policies, there are at least two crucial topics to take into account to make better decisions. Firstly, the concern about social exclusion and the acknowledgement of the importance of the countryside by the entire society. This theme is narrowly related to the traditional isolation of rural people and the lack of inclusive policies described previously. Secondly, the inclusion of biodiversity concerns, as one of the indicators graded with negative impact, especially in scenarios I and II. It is important because some of the current public policies related to mining activities have been criticised from different viewpoints, which include the environmental impact, but especially because in some areas these activities generate more violence and exclusion for rural people (Bohórquez Caldera, 2013; Villar Argaiz, 2014). 7.4 Conclusions The goal of this paper was to identify the potential implications of some public policies on the rural development indicators and the Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry in Colombia and Mexico using the FoPIA methodology. From the methodological point of view, FoPIA is a useful alternative to assess the impact of public policies on previously defined situations, taking into account the perception of diverse stakeholders. FoPIA is a way to give major evidence to people that make decisions for the purpose of defining comprehensive policies and, as a consequence, obtaining better results. In this case, six different policy scenarios were defined, three from Mexico and three from Colombia, and the participants should assess the impact of these scenarios on the rural development indicators previously identified and graded. The current research used a substantial variation from other examples where FoPIA has been applied. The variant consisted of the fact that the assessment process was done through an online survey. It shows advantages because it allows covering more participants, during more time, with a relatively low cost. Equally, it permits gathering the perceptions of diverse stakeholders, regardless of location, background, or political view. However, some weaknesses could be identified. For instance, an online survey needs access to the Internet, and in the case of the current research, the participation of peasants could be higher. On the same way, the variation avoids the direct dialogue of the stakeholders that are sharing the same space. Nevertheless, based on the results of an online survey, a focus group could be an alternative to a direct discussion among experts. Regarding the assessment done by the participants in Mexico, the policies must emphasise on topics such as pluriactivity. According to the results of the current research and other evaluations of public policies, a consequence of their application is that agricultural production, especially from smallholders, is decreasing, and for this reason, peasants are looking for alternatives to gain their livelihoods in urban areas from Mexico or other countries. Sometimes these are basic jobs, and low wages are their main characteristic.



148

Another theme remarked by the participants in Mexico was that the impact of the assessed policies on the indicator Perspective on Life was almost non-existent. In other words, the level of this indicator remains almost equal in the three scenarios in comparison with the baseline. This indicator assessed, for example, problems with alcohol consumption or the standard behaviour of the peasants regarding the tradition of resting on Sundays, or if they usually enjoy holidays. The public policies must take into consideration, beyond concerns on agricultural production, other topics that are relevant to reach an improvement in the quality of life and to respect the rights of the rural inhabitants. In other words, rural policies should offer the likelihood to all rural inhabitants to have access, inter alia, to culture, recreation, or arts that provide options to reach a complete rural development. The assessment in Colombia shows clear differences among the policy scenarios. The scenario I was graded in such way that all the indicators, and hence the patrimonies, reached a low level in comparison with the baseline. It means a clear disapproval of the policies carried out by the Colombian government in the period 2014-2018. In the case of scenario II, some specific indicators got the best level, and as a consequence, some patrimonies. The improvement was significant in the Physical Heritage, and moderate in the Economic Patrimony. The other patrimonies remain almost on the same level than the baseline. It means that the policies of scenario II should take into account critical themes such as biodiversity and the concerns about the loss of traditional seeds and the declining of wildlife as a result of agricultural practices. Equally, policy makers should allow including social topics at the moment of the application of procedures in scenario II, because these concerns got a low level in the assessment process. In the case of scenario III, all the indicators got a high standard in comparison with the baseline, and as a result, all the patrimonies reached an improvement in their level. It means that the participants approve the policies proposed in this scenario and think that with the application of the measures projected, the rural population in Colombia will improve their quality of life while their rights are respected. In other words, the appropriate way to reach a better level of rural development in Colombia is the implementation of the policies suggested in scenario III. However, policy makers must notice the concerns about Pluriactivity and take into consideration that many rural residents, especially young people, are looking for job opportunities in urban areas, with the problems described previously. 7.5 References Agencia de Servicios a la Comercialización y Desarrollo de Mercados Agropecuarios (ASERCA). (2015). Padrón de participantes a marzo 2014, Coordinación General de Comercialización, Dirección General de Operaciones Financieras, Prevención y Manejo de Riesgo. Australian Public Service Commission. (2012). Tackling wicked problems: A public policy perspective. Azuero, J. F. (2015). BIPOLARIDADE RURAL NO GOVERNO COLOMBIANO: KAUSTKY, LENIN E CHAYANOV, DUAS HERANÇAS, DUAS VISÕES, DOIS CAMPOS. Revista Brasileira de Sociologia-RBS, 3(6), 139–164. Bernstein, H. (2010). Class dynamics of agrarian change (Vol. 1). Winnipeg: Kumarian Press. Bezlepkina, I., Brouwer, F., & Reidsma, P. (2014). Impact assessment of land use policies: Introduction. Impact Assessment of Land Use Policies and Sustainable Development in Developing Countries, 37, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.03.010 Bohórquez Caldera, L. A. (2013). COLONIZATION OF NATURE: AN APPROACH FROM EXTRACTIVISM IN COLOMBIA. El Ágora USB, 13(1), 221–239.



149

Buitrago, S. M. P. (2016). Las decisiones de Estado a favor del gran capital: el problema agrario en Colombia siglo XX-inicios del siglo XXI. Nova et Vetera, 25. Caballero-Fula, H. (2016). Acuerdos de La Habana y territorialidad indígena. Una mirada desde el departamento del Cauca. Bitácora Urbano Territorial, 26, 95–102. CONEVAL, & SAGARPA. (2015). Informe de la Evaluación Específica de Desempeño 2014 2015 Valoración de la información de desempeño presentada por el programa Fondo para el Apoyo a Proyectos Productivos en Núcleos Agrarios (FAPPA). Retrieved from http://sagarpa.gob.mx/programas2/evaluacionesExternas/Documents/EVALUACIONES%20ES PEC%C3%8DFICAS%20DE%20DESEMPE%C3%91O%20(EED)/2%20Informe%20Complet o.pdf Congreso de la República de Colombia. Por la cual se crean y se desarrollan las Zonas de Interés de Desarrollo Rural y Económico, Pub. L. No. Proyecto de Ley 133 (2014). Congreso de la República de Colombia. Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2014 - 2018. Todos por un nuevo país, Pub. L. No. Ley 1753 9 Junio (2015). Delegados del gobierno de la República de Colombia y las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia FARC-EP. (2014). Hacia un nuevo campo Colombiano: Reforma Rural Integral. Borrador conjunto, Habana. Eslava Mocha, P. R. (2015). Entre lo urgente y lo importante: Incertidumbres fundamentales desde el territorio. Orinoquia, 19(2). Fox, J., & Haight, L. (2010). Subsidios para la desigualdad. Las políticas públicas del maíz en México a partir del libre comercio. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, University of California, Santa Cruz. Grajales, J. (2015). Land grabbing, legal contention and institutional change in Colombia. Journal of Peasant Studies, 42(3-4), 541–560. Herrera Tapia, F. (2009). Apuntes sobre las instituciones y los programas de desarrollo rural en México: Del Estado benefactor al Estado neoliberal. Estudios Sociales (Hermosillo, Son.), 17, 7–39. König, H. J., Schuler, J., Suarma, U., McNeill, D., Imbernon, J., Damayanti, F., … Helming, K. (2010). Assessing the impact of land use policy on urban-rural sustainability using the FoPIA approach in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Sustainability, 2(7), 1991–2009. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2071991 König, H. J., Uthes, S., Schuler, J., Zhen, L., Purushothaman, S., Suarma, U., … Wiggering, H. (2013). Regional impact assessment of land use scenarios in developing countries using the FoPIA approach: Findings from five case studies. Integrated Land-Use and Regional Resource Management – A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on Future Perspectives for a Sustainable Development of Regional Resources, 127, Supplement, S56–S64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.021 Luján, J. L. S. (2008). Desde los colores del maíz: una agenda para el campo mexicano (Vol. 2). El Colegio de Michoacán. Machado, A. (2009). La reforma rural, una deuda social y política. Bogotá, Colombia: Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Centro de



150

Investigaciones Para El Desarrollo, 601, 39. Mendoza León, L. (2015). Implementación y efectos socio-económicos del programa ‘PROCAMPO-PROAGRO productivo’. Análisis bibliohemerográfico. Montaña, D. F. (2002). Para sembrar la paz, hay que aflojar la tierra: comunidades, tierras y territorios en la construcción de un país. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Instituto de Estudios Ambientales. Morris, J. B., Tassone, V., de Groot, R., Camilleri, M., & Moncada, S. (2011). A framework for participatory impact assessment: Involving stakeholders in European policy making, a case study of land use change in Malta. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 12. Morris, J., Camilleri, M., & Moncada, S. (2008). Key sustainability issues in European sensitive areas — a participatory approach. In K. Helming, M. Pérez-Soba, & P. Tabbush (Eds.), Sustainability Impact Assessment of Land Use Changes (pp. 451–470). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78648-1_22 Pachón, F., Bokelmann, W., & Ramirez, C. (2015). Rural Development Indicators Based on Food Sovereignty Principales: A methodology for its Selection. Presented at the 78th Annual Meeting of Rural Sociological Society, Madison, Wisconsin. USA. Pachón, F., Bokelmann, W., & Ramirez, C. (2016a). Rural development thinking, moving from the green revolution to food sovereignty. Agronomía Colombiana, 34(2), 267–276. https://doi.org/Doi:10.15446/agron.colomb.v34n2.56639 Pachón, F., Bokelmann, W., & Ramirez, C. (2016b). Heritages of the peasantry: an analytical framework to address rural development. Presented at the 4th Biannual Conference on Nordic Rural Research, Akureyri. Pachón, F., Bokelmann, W., & Ramirez, C. (2016c). Heritages of the peasantry framework to address rural development: six case studies in Mexico for its validation. Presented at the XIV World Congress of Rural Sociology 2016. Sustainable and just rural transitions: Connections and complexities, Toronto. Pachón, F., Bokelmann, W., & Ramirez, C. (2016d). Application in Colombia of the Heritage and Patrimony of the Peasantry Framework to Address Rural Development. Presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of Rural Sociological Society, Toronto. Probst, G., & Bassi, A. (2014). Tackling complexity: a systemic approach for decision makers. Greenleaf publishing. Purushothaman, S., Patil, S., Francis, I., König, H. J., Reidsma, P., & Hegde, S. (2013). Participatory impact assessment of agricultural practices using the land use functions framework: case study from India. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 9(1), 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.721005 Ramírez, E. (2014). Programa de Aserca deja fuera al 90 por ciento de su población objetivo. Contralinea. Retrieved from http://contralinea.com.mx/archivorevista/index.php/2014/07/22/programa-de-aserca-deja-fuera-al-90-por-ciento-de-su-poblacionobjetivo/ Rivas, E. R., Bernal, L. E. P., & Rodríguez, A. V. (2016). LA POLÍTICA RURAL EN MÉXICO EN LA ETAPA DEL TLCAN Y SU EFECTO EN LA PRODUCTIVIDAD AGRÍCOLA DE LA REGIÓN CENTRO-NORTE DEL PAÍS (Vol. 9, pp. 1001–1018).



151

Presented at the Memorias del Congreso de la Red Internacional de Investigadores en Competitividad. Rubio, B. (2012). Explotados y excluidos: los campesinos lationoamericanos en la fase agroexportadora neolibral (Cuarta edición). 268: Plaza y Valdés. Rubio, B. (2014). El dominio del hambre: crisis de hegemonía y alimentos. Universidad Autónoma Chapingo. Colegio de Postgraduados. Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas. Juan Pablos Editor. SAGARPA. (2015). PROGRAMAS SAGARPA 2015. Retrieved http://www.sagarpa.gob.mx/ProgramasSAGARPA/2015/Paginas/default.aspx

from

Trigueros, M. A., & Prieto, E. M. (2016). Iniciativas de las mujeres: emprendimiento y oportunidades en el espacio rural de Castilla y León. Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica, 62(3), 613–637. Uribe-Muñoz, A. (2016). Luchas por el territorio y la participación política: retos del postconflicto. Bitácora Urbano Territorial, 26, 29–36. Vargas-Hernández, J. G. (2016). WOMEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE THROUGH BEST PRACTICES IN RURAL MICROBUSINESS. EMC REVIEW-ČASOPIS ZA EKONOMIJU, 11(1). Vennix, J. A. (1999). Group model-building: tackling messy problems. System Dynamics Review, 15(4), 379. Villar Argaiz, D. (2014). La mineria como’’locomotora’’de la economía colombiana y su costo ambiental. Revista Colombiana de Ciencias Pecuarias, 27(3), 155–156. Zarazúa-Escobar, J. A., Almaguer-Vargas, G., & Ocampo-Ledesma, J. G. (2011). El programa de apoyos directos al campo (PROCAMPO) y su impacto sobre la gestión del conocimiento productivo y comercial de la agricultura del Estado de México. Agricultura, Sociedad Y Desarrollo, 8, 89–105.



152

CHAPTER 8 GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 8.1 Introduction Rural development has been one of the most relevant concerns of governments, especially from developing countries. In the rural areas of these countries poverty, undernourishment, illiteracy, poor health service, difficult access to education, isolation, and the like, have a higher prevalence in comparison with urban areas (FAO, 2003, 2015; UNITED NATIONS, 2015; WORLD BANK, 2015, 2016). Tackling these problems has been a complex task. The emphasis of public policies, NGO activities, and most of the academics has been put on economic solutions focused on agricultural production (Bernstein, 2010; Kay, 2005; Scoones, 2015). Bezemer & Headey (2008) interestingly described the reasons why the focus of rural policies has an Urban Bias, as well as the consequences of this condition, which are evident in the findings of the current research. Initially, they argue that it is a colonial inheritance what determines a dualistic economy, the urban and the rural, and even the capitalist agriculture and the peasant economy. Besides this fact, they include severe market failures, especially in agriculture as a relevant factor. Most of these failures are represented by official support and dumping practices in developed countries, against the lack of subsidies and liberalisation of the agricultural economy in developing countries. Additionally, from the political voice, poor people but especially the rural poor, are weak in comparison to the urban rich and the rural rich – capitalist agriculture-. The consequences of such Urban Bias are evident, and most of them were described in the current research: persistence of the rural poverty and nowadays, the urbanisation of the rural poverty, represented by growing poverty in the outskirts of the large cities in developing countries. The lack of opportunities for decent rural employment and access to infrastructure increases migration and lack of identity in the peasants; or the access to governmental services that enhances the gap between the rural and the urban in different scenarios such as education, health, electricity, roads, and the like. Given the above-mentioned bias, concerns inherent to the people have been located in secondary places. That is why, despite some evident achievements, deep problems remain in the countryside. In the middle of this scenario, the question that motivated the current research was, can the most important aspects related to rural development be integrated into a methodology that allows to identify and prioritise the most relevant issues to be taken into account in the decision-making process of Public policies that look for the improvement of the quality of rural life while respecting their rights at the same time? To solve this problem, the research organised a methodology that modified the proposal by Probst & Bassi (2014), which organised a series of phases to tackle rural development. Chapter one and two addressed the specific goal of analysing existing concepts of rural development in order to identify its complexity. As a result, food sovereignty was proposed as a part of a new rural development approach. Chapter three focused on the specific goal of constructing an analytical framework to define and analyse rural development in a broad way. As a result, Heritage and Patrimony of the Peasantry were defined as the way to analyse rural development. Chapter four attended to the specific goal of deriving a system of indicators and variables to measure rural development holistically. Consequently, using different participative methodologies, 23 indicators were selected. Chapter five and six focused on the specific goals of validating the rural development indicators among the various rural areas in Colombia and Mexico and analysing rural development indicators in the analytical framework proposed in order to establish possible relationships between them. Accordingly, 400 peasant families from



153

12 regions from Colombia and Mexico were interviewed face to face, and the findings were analysed based on the analytical framework constructed. Finally, chapter seven tackled the specific objective assessing the impact of the public policies in Colombia and Mexico on the rural development indicators and the analytical framework. As a result, using the FoPIA methodology 609, the stakeholders involved in rural concerns from Colombia and Mexico were contacted to assess the impact of six different public policies, three from each country, on the rural development indicators and subsequently, on the patrimonies of Colombian and Mexican peasants. Given this brief digest, the final chapter of general discussion and conclusions aims to analyse the complete research from three points of view. Firstly, from the methodological point of view, the methods used based on each chapter will be examined, highlighting positive and negative aspects identified during their application. Secondly, from the point of view of the empirical and theoretical results, a reflection based on the findings of each part of the research will be carried out. Finally, some policy and practical implications will be stated in order to remark some aspects that could be useful for decision-makers of rural development policies. 8.2 Methodological approaches used As it was declared previously, the current research adapted the methodology proposed by Probst & Bassi (2014) to tackle complex problems. The following discussion is based on the methodological approaches used, seeking to find out positive and negative aspects, as well as key points to improve for future research or for people interested in applying the methodology. 8.2.1

Systems thinking approach

“The whole is more than the sum of its parts” is the central idea of the holistic meaning. It aims to identify, beyond the evident circumstances, the roots of the problems. Tackling with ‘wicked problems’ requires a holistic thinking (Brown, Harris, & Russell, 2010). Rural development, certainly, has the characteristics of a 'wicked problem', among other reasons, because it has been analysed in a fragmented way many times. That is why rural development demands a systemic thinking to deal with all the topics related to it. Systems thinking, in the case of the current research, permitted to analyse rural development comprehensively, going further than the traditional discourses, establishing grey gaps in which traditional disciplines do not find out answers to every question that arises. The application of this approach to analyse the problems allows to know their boundaries, and then, identify the interactions, relations, and exchanges between their parts (Haines, 2016). The outcomes of using systems thinking are the construction of alternatives to solve the roots of the problems, but most importantly, the creation of an environment to improve the resilience of the system (Sternberg, 1998). The advantages of using this approach are that it allows identifying the players involved in rural development matters -public sector, civil society and private sector- in order to warrant dynamic interactions and create synergies between them. For instance, the public sector actors such as government, public institutions and their personnel, academics, and the like, should make adequate public policies to resolve the roots of the problems in the countryside. Equally, they must lead the operation of these policies in order to ensure enough consequences. The actors of the civil society such as the representatives of the peasant organisations, as well as the consumers of the agricultural products should represent the voice of their communities, defending their ideas, and being purposeful in order to make the best decisions for the public policies, helping to predict the impact, as well as to assess the real effects of these policies. Finally, the private sector such as rural enterprises should create a better environment to implement the public policies and grant it in different ways.



154

Certainly, system thinking allows approaching to a complex thinking (Morin, 1992). Essentially, both try to establish relationships between the facts. In opposition to the traditional way to tackle the problems, complex thinking aims to link the events, going forward and back in a loop to explore more alternatives that joint these facts with the context, but equally with the globalism in which they are immersed. Complex thinking avoids the simplification and identifies, beyond the obvious, more topics involved, the ‘emergencies’, new qualities and properties of the system (Morin, 1999). It means that analysing the problems from different points of view increases the likelihood to find out creative alternatives to solve them taking into account all this ‘emergences’ of the systems. The application of systems thinking and complex thinking permitted to avoid the bias that the background of stakeholders holds. In other words, when the actors involved in a problem are trying to tackle with it, a holistic approach should open their minds and overcome their prejudice. For instance, an agrarian economist will be able to take into consideration the ideas to overcome the poverty trap of humanistic colleagues, including social aspects as a strategy to reach the best quality of life while respecting the human rights of rural people. In other words, the actors will be able to solve the rural development problems in an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary way, precisely the base of the next approach used in this research. 8.2.2

Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach

Certainly, addressing a ‘wicked problem’ requires, beyond the systems thinking described, an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach to deal with all the causes and consequences of the problems, in this case, focused on the rural development concerns. The current research used both methods, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary, especially to analyse the main approaches to rural development and their perspectives, but especially, during the definition process of the analytical framework ‘Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry’. As it was discussed in chapter three, an interdisciplinary approach could be understood as the integration of experts of two or more disciplines, who bring their expertise to create solutions to solve complex problems. In this scenario, the empirical knowledge of those who do not belong to any discipline, but who daily put into practice all their skills to solve problems must be included. On the other hand, a transdisciplinary approach seeks to understand complex problems through the interaction of diverse disciplines (Jessup, 2007), and mainly aims to create new concepts, which should mix all these knowledge in order to solve the problems in different ways (Miguélez, 2009). As a result, novel methods, which suggest innovative alternatives to tackle complexity, must emerge. 8.2.3

Critical approach

Given this context, at least three novelties emerged in the current research. Firstly, the alternative organisation of rural development approaches described in chapter two. In it, the socalled rural development ‘perspectives’ were gathered according to their focus on four methods. Additionally, an alternative approach was proposed, the political, which is represented by the doctrine of people’s rights, and takes a body in the food sovereignty ideas. Secondly, the proposal described in chapter three of overcoming the traditional idea of ‘capital’ and replacing it by the meaning of heritage or patrimony, in the case of the peasantry related to the value of the traditions and knowledge. Certainly, it is a novelty to move all these peasant backgrounds to the sphere of the invaluable and non-marketable, and hence, to understand it as the most important legacy offered by a large social group to the whole society. However, the most important aspect is that based on them, decision-makers could be able to address rural development problems. Finally, chapter three opens a new discussion to the characteristic of ‘inter-functionality’ of the countryside in order to preserve the heritages and patrimonies of the peasantry. In other words, inter-functionality aims to defend the traditions and rescue the knowledge of the peasants through the construction of narrow interactions and the integration of



155

all the activities carried out in the countryside, in the middle of stable and fair relationships between the actors described some paragraphs before: public sector, civil society and the private sector. 8.2.4

Participatory Multi-stakeholder approach

A multi-stakeholder approach is essentially the involvement of various actors from different levels, national and governmental organisations, civil society, and private sector, with diverse backgrounds, including those with the empirical knowledge and expertise in the process to address, understand, and solve a problem or situation (Thabrew, Wiek, & Ries, 2009). The methodology has been applied to involve several and diverse points of view for the purpose of tackling complicated situations (Hemmati, 2002). This kind of participatory approaches seeks to gather as much information as possible to support decision-makers in a more transparent and responsible process (Pigman, 2007). Despite the interesting contributions that the methodology has made to the participatory research, Dowling, Ruiz-Mercado, & Zavala (2016) call the attention on the fact that a significant limitation of the model is the difficulty of verifying how pleased the actors involved with the results are, as well as the matter of the representativeness of the thoughts of particular stakeholders involved. Notwithstanding this fact, the involvement of several interested parties in the process of decision-making guarantees that diverse voices are heard and broadens the spectrum of particularities to improve the results. The multi-stakeholder approach was used in chapters four and seven. Different tools were used in chapter four to reach the goal of selecting the rural development indicators. For instance, the Delphi method in general, supported by the Vester Matrix was applied with a group of experts to identify the indicators that exert a positive influence on the others, and that at the same time are positively influenced by all other indicators. A survey was conducted online with the participation of people from different countries where the contestants graded the indicators previously selected according to the aspects that a good indicator must have: reliability, feasibility, relevance, completeness, comparability, and sensitiveness. All these participative tools allowed getting a set of transcendent topics that all the people interested in analysing rural development problems could use in a confident way in different contexts. Chapter seven, in turn, used the Framework for Participatory Impact Assessment (FoPIA) in order to grade the impact of different policies on the indicators previously applied in Mexico and Colombia. Three separate public policies were selected in both countries as the scenarios to assess the effects of their application. This method allowed finding out the topics to strengthen at the moment of putting the policies into practice in the real world. This fact is especially interesting in the case of Colombia, given the fact that two of the policies assessed will be applied very soon -2017 and forwards, which means that these results could be taken into account by the policy makers. It is remarkable that in both chapters an online survey was used as a way to reach different actors. This fact has advantages and disadvantages. As positive points, it is a tool that allows the participation of more people from diverse places; it is a cheap tool, and very easy to use. On the other hand, as a negative aspect, it is important to recognise that people unable to access an Internet connection, especially peasants and rural inhabitants, were more complicated to reach. However, in both cases, a significant number of rural actors participated. Certainly, in the event of peasants with more resources, other tools could be used in order to reach more of them. However, at the moment of the application of the indicators in Mexico and Colombia, the focus was rural families and using another alternative such as the face-to-face interview, involving 400 households in the research. The face to face interview, used in Mexico and Colombia, is one of the most widespread, strong, and employed a form of data gathering, especially in social sciences (Irvine, Drew, & Sainsbury, 2013). It is extremely flexible in its application and has several advantages because it



156

allows the direct interaction between the interviewer and the respondent, despite the fact that it could be expensive and requires time availability to carry it out (Lindhjem & Navrud, 2011). Opdenakker (2006) presents an interesting comparison among four interviewing techniques for qualitative research and concludes that the face-to-face interview is the best one because it shows a synchronous communication of time and space. Opdenakker remarks relevant topics such as the voice, intonation, direct interaction, and body language as a manner to give additional information to the interviewer. Given the advantages that a face to face interview offers for research, the current study used this method to measure the rural development indicators selected for the purpose of taking a ‘snapshot’, and later, analysing the information gathered in the analytical framework designed. Chapter five applied the technique in six different regions of Colombia; it allows an exchange of ideas between the interviewed rural families and the researcher. There were remarkable things such as the fact that the peasants that are more isolated and affected by the violence were the most optimistic in their responses, confident in the peasant organisations as the way to strengthen the countryside, and indeed hopeful about the benefits of the peace agreement between the Colombian government and FARC. On the other hand, peasants that are closer to the markets, even though they have acceptable roads and infrastructure, were pessimistic about the current policies and many of them were disappointed by the arrogance of the government's armed forces against the peasants in the recent agricultural strikes. They felt like ‘second-class people’ unrecognised by the government, despite the fact that the urban society, in general, saw their requests to the government as fair. Chapter six used the same technique and questionnaire in six regions of Mexico. The method allowed this researcher to learn about the Mexican rural situation, unknown until that moment. The direct dialogue with the Mexican peasants was a challenge because it required asking the questions in a different variety of the language, even though it was in Spanish. In other words, it was necessary to ask the same question in a different way, accommodating the language to the right words in Mexican Spanish. The extreme influence that an old institution such as the Catholic Church exerts on the Mexican peasants, especially in their reproductive behaviour was remarkable. Even though this subject was non-included the questionnaire, there was a repetitive questioning from the peasants about the veracity of getting uterus cancer seven years after having a contraceptive surgery, as a priest had told them. Equally, the technique was useful to know the feelings about the migration of rural people. On the one hand, the idea of many young people to migrate the same as their parents had done before was evident. On the contrary, there was the nostalgia of some migrants, who just desired to make enough money and go back home to start a new business and live. However, the common denominator was that migration was the only alternative they have to reach a better quality of life, despite the rejection of some members of the society in the USA, and the separation of their families. On the one hand, summarising the discussion about the methodological approaches used, it is important to remark, that the methods applied are narrowly related. They shared similarities, and the use of one of them indirectly implies the use of other. For instance, it was difficult to apply a multi-stakeholder approach or the systems correctly without thinking about an interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary approach. On the other hand, although the use of such kind of approaches does not guarantee that the alternatives proposed are able to solve all the problems, they are a guaranty that they cover as many different visions as possible. 8.3 Empirical and theoretical findings Given the empirical and theoretical findings of the current research, in addition to the highlights of each chapter, six breaking points could be remarked.



157

8.3.1 Food sovereignty and food security: complementary or excluding? The arguments discussed in chapters one and two show that both perspectives exclude one another. As it was discussed, food security has been widespread and applied everywhere. There are strong and consolidate global institutions behind the concept and its practices (Asche, Bellemare, Roheim, Smith, & Tveteras, 2015; Cumbre de la Alimentacion, 1996; Desmarais, 2002, 2008; Patel, 2009; Rosset, 2003). However, the facts of a hungry world, food waste, obesity, and the like show its failure (Roberts, 2008). Given this scenario, the perspectives are excluding. However, both share the same final goal: feeding people around de world, which means that they could be complementary if the institutions behind each one agreed on some relevant issues. For instance, respecting the rights of both consumers and peasants to decide the kind of food they want to produce and consume, which includes rights to land tenure, water, and seeds. Similarly, avoiding child labour in food production. Protecting the environment at the moment of cropping, transporting, processing, and commercialising food. Guarantying fair prices to peasants and consumers, avoiding harmful practices such as dumping. Recognising the importance that rural inhabitants have to the society beyond their economic activities. 8.3.2 Political approach to rural development Chapter two raises two interesting facts. Firstly, it proposes a new policy approach to rural development represented by the food sovereignty perspective. This fact could be risky because in many politic scenarios the proposals of food sovereignty still generate resistance feelings for many reasons. One of these grounds is that the proposal was born far away from the traditional spaces and its principles stand against the status quo. On the other hand, as food sovereignty is a relatively original proposal, its influence in public policies is weak, something that normally results with new proposals (Ellis & Biggs, 2001). Nevertheless, during the last years, the discussion of food sovereignty has been the focus of many academic meetings. Remarkably, the most important conference of rural development and related matters, the World Conference of Rural Sociology carried out in 2016 in Toronto (Canada), had the food sovereignty conceptualisation as one of the highest attended to and discussed axes, as well as examples from different places worldwide about the application of its principles. Having said that, it is important to remark that the way to reach a relative influence in public policies requires the consolidation of the road to implementing food sovereignty principles and the evidence that the model works. It is precisely in the construction of this path where examples such as the current research could contribute. The second fact is that it proposes a simple definition of rural development, where two central ideas are included. On one hand, the goal of reaching a quality of life, while on the other, the respect of the human rights of all the rural inhabitants. The discussion about the conceptualisation of quality of life could be deep. However, the proposal of Human Scale Development gives key points in this direction. It seeks to highlight the fact that as an individual or community, the quality of life could be reached at the moment to satisfy the needs of human beings, and a tool to verify the process is the matrix of needs and satisfiers (MaxNeef, Elizalde, & Hopenhayn, 1994). The topic of the rights is brought to the discussion based on the political approach of rural development, which highlights a flagship, the respect of the rights of all the rural people (Patel, 2009). 8.3.3 Peasantry legacy Given the themes discussed so far, the analytical framework ‘Heritages and Patrimonies of the Peasantry’ serves as a body to include those aspects usually forgotten, which are crucial to fulfilling the gaps of other rural development approaches. The analytical framework was the product of an exhaustive literature revision of many authors, especially the proposal by Flora, Flora, & Gasteyer (2015) as well as of an internal discussion about the best form to include topics ignored at the moment to analyse rural development. Heritages and Patrimonies of the



158

Peasantry seeks to organise in an understandable and usable manner, the concepts discussed in the research so far, as well as to point out at least three relevant facts. Firstly, and perhaps the central argument, is the recognition of the importance of the peasantry, their traditions, customs, behaviours, and the like. It is crucial at the moment to appreciate, protect, and promote those characteristics of the peasantry; they will be able to satisfy their needs. This argument does not ignore that some of the peasantry practices must be forgotten because they fail to respect the rights of the entire society. Secondly, it includes general topics ignored in other rural development proposals such as ‘sustainable rural livelihoods’ (Scoones, 2015). One of the themes ignored and remarked in the current proposal is the importance of the institutionality, which increasingly acquires major relevance as the way to coordinate the dialogue between different actors and the governments. The other theme is the culture. It could be included in other topics, however, due to the enormous significance as part of the relevance of the peasantry and central point of the analytical framework, current proposal remarks culture in order to be analysed deeply. Finally, the distance that it takes from the notion of ‘capital’ and the preponderance that it gives to the argument of a ‘heritage or patrimony’. The use of capital combined with an economic sphere links everything that walks together with the word to the market. In other words, everything can be sold, no matter the value it has, and anyone can buy. However, once again, those characteristics of the peasantry are invaluable, and hence, become a heritage, a patrimony to the peasantry itself, and to the entire society. 8.3.4 An alternative to measuring a complex problem Based on a comprehensive literature review, 300 indicators were initially selected from a different kind of research related to rural problems. As it was described previously, those indicators were grouped according to their similarities and using a systematic methodology. At the end of the process, 23 indicators were selected. Given the organised method, and the participation of many stakeholders in it, the list of 23 rural development topics was schematically selected, and hence, it becomes an interesting tool to be adopted in different places and in different contexts, no matter the industrialisation level of the rural area analysed, the kind of agricultural production, or the integration degree to the market, the indicators seek to take a ‘snapshot’ of the current reality in the place where they are applied. The tool could be modified in different ways to measure each indicator. In other words, the questions to verify the current situation of a particular topic could vary according to the interests of the researcher, as well as the focus that they give to the research. Regarding this issue, the current research used the food sovereignty principles at the moment of constructing the questions to measure the indicators selected. Another interesting topic was that the set of indicators was organised according to their relationship with the heritages or patrimonies. It allows creating internal coherence to the research, as well as to find out the links that the indicators have among them. This fact is useful at the moment of analysing the results because some indicators interact with more than one patrimony, which certainly makes some of them more valuable at the time of proposing alternatives to improve the level of the indicators, and hence, the patrimonies. 8.3.5 Colombia, the isolation of its countryside The application of the methodology shows a ‘picture’ of the reality in six regions of Colombia. Beyond the results previously analysed in chapter five, isolation, poverty, poor infrastructure, and failure in public policies are a common denominator. The topics related to a strong government presence to lead the development process were identified at a low level. The findings illustrate the institutional weakness that has traditionally characterised the Colombian State. Such failure of Colombian institutions allowed the strengthening of those conditions that deepened a serious social conflict that started in the countryside and that has moved to the urban areas in the last decades.



159

The civil war in Colombia had its beginnings in rural problems such as land tenure, lack of participation of rural inhabitants, or isolation (Defensoría del Pueblo Colombia, 2014; Guzmán Campos, Fals Borda, & Umaña Luna, 1962; Mondragón, 2002). In 2017, more than 50 years after the last violence phase in Colombia started, the real conditions that triggered it, still continue the same (DANE, 2016), or have even gotten worse because other topics have joined to deepen the institutional crisis further. For instance, illegal crops, production and traffic of illegal substances, or illegal mining (Alesina, Carrasquilla, & Echevarría, 2005; Andrade Correa, 2011; Valencia, 2015). The current findings demonstrate a complete failure of the Colombian State and its institutions. Despite the fact that enormous resources –economic, human, environmental, physical, and the like- were wasted in a war that sought to eliminate the enemy, this goal was never reached. The internal enemy, represented by illegally armed poor peasants from the most isolated areas, fighting during more than five decades against the Colombian legal armed forces, represented by another group of poor peasants armed with governmental weapons, just show the irrationality of this conflict, and its consequences, hopelessness, pessimism, and lack of confidence in the governments and their policies. Given these findings, the rural areas in Colombia are a clear example of the consequences of the Urban Bias described by Lipton (1977); Bates (1993) and Redclift (1984). The public policies in Colombia have certainly had a tendency to favour urban inhabitants and mainly a dominant class that has held the industry, the land, and the political power. The low level reached in most of the patrimonies analysed elucidated this fact, and that is why the conditions described in regions such as Sur de Bolivar are widespread in rural areas far away from the major cities. Public policies with an Urban Bias indeed determine the problems of the Colombian countryside, which are summarised in violence, isolation, illiteracy, undernourishment, migration, small production, and poverty. However, in the middle of this dark scenario, a peace agreement between the Colombian government and one of the actors of this conflict, the FARC, was signed at the end of 2016. Even though many Colombian people decided to reject the agreement initially signed in a referendum, especially because of the deal to overcome the problems of the rural inhabitants. After the inclusion of some recommendations and clarifications, the Colombian Congress ratified the pact, and the application of the topics agreed will start after the second half of 2017. It opens a way to solve the problems that have impacted severely the Colombian countryside, such as those remarked in the current research: infrastructure, access to markets, pluriactivity, biodiversity, recycling, and so on. However, an important fact remains in the environment, due to the same weak institutions carrying out the traditional practices and with the same personnel, will increase the likelihood of failure, and Colombian people will lose the opportunity to solve the root problems of its countryside. 8.3.6 Mexico, losing its identity The results gotten in Mexico show an interesting contradiction. On the one hand, the process of recovering old cultural traditions with the governmental support such as growing maguey again and producing alcoholic beverages such as Pulque and Mezcal. On the other hand, there is an opposite situation, the loss of the tradition of growing Milpa, the most appreciated value of the Mesoamerican peasantry. As it was remarked by Bartra (2009), the peasants in Mexico and other countries of Central America, besides growing maize, grow Milpa, and this is the base of their diet and part of their culture. Previous examples open the main concern of the Mexican's findings: the defence of traditional culture, which is being condemned by external and internal factors. Certainly, external factors are well represented by the influence of dominant economies in neighbourhood. That influence is evident in economic factors such as NAFTA and



160

the the the its

implications for food production and regulatory laws (Cabrera, 2015; Rivas, Bernal, & Rodríguez, 2016); Cultural factors also have an influence because the migration to reach the socalled American Dream is producing an ageing effect in the countryside, which indeed impacts the agricultural production (Taylor & López-Feldman, 2010). The effects of environmental factors could be explained by the pressure that the dominant economies exert to produce more things to cover their needs, a fact that generates impacts on the ecosystems, and will increase the migration rate (Feng, Krueger, & Oppenheimer, 2010). Internal factors are represented by the public policies that aim to increase agricultural production, leaving out the preservation of culture and traditions. However, the most relevant issue undoubtedly is the loss of young people, most of them well-educated, who migrate to the North, either looking for new job opportunities or because it is a tradition in their families. Regardless the real motives that migrants have, the fact is that Mexico, and in general Central America, are losing an entire generation of people, and compensating for those losses will take a long time, significant investments, and coherent policies that can identify the crucial points to solve the causes of these problems. 8.4 Policy and practice implications Given the results obtained, especially the analysis of the impact of the public policies on the indicators and the patrimonies of the Colombian and Mexican peasantry, it is evident that the public policies in both countries need to include some aspects in order to make them better in terms of the rural development goal, which is improving the quality of life of rural inhabitants while respecting their human rights. Initially, it is important to remark that in Mexico the three scenarios assessed show an improvement in the level of all the indicators, and hence, in the patrimonies of the Mexican peasantry. In the case of Colombia, the results reveal an optimistic panorama for rural areas with the scenario related to the policies derived from the peace agreement, while with the scenario of the current policies the scene would be completely adverse. A mixture of confident and deleterious influence was predicted in the scenario of the application of ZIDRES Law. According to the analytical framework designed, the most important indicator to improve the level of the patrimonies is ‘Female Participation’, specifically the participation of women in the decision-making in the household and in other scenarios of public policies related to rural concerns. Equally, avoiding a problem such as domestic violence will be useful to improve the level of the patrimonies. It is evident that opening spaces for a real engagement of women in the process of decision-making are a challenge, even in urban areas. Reaching this goal should include two different strategies, starting as soon as possible with sufficient spaces to participate, from the local level to the national one. At the same time, would be the ideal scenario starting with a programme of special training for women with capacities and willingness to take on the challenges of leading the process of making better policies. Other social topics such as respect to beliefs of rural people, and especially the social recognition by the society of the importance of the peasantry for their future should be central to a new vision of rural public policies. Reaching this goal must be done through education for both, rural and urban people. Regarding this fact, the education programmes for rural population must include themes that make the peasants feel proud of belonging to their communities, and hence, recover their traditions and culture. Beyond the social topics, some others are crucial to take into consideration based on the results achieved. In Colombia, the construction of tertiary roads must be a priority as well as a national programme to incentive the use of solar panels in those places where electricity is unavailable. This programme should include governmental subsidies in order to facilitate the installation and maintenance of the panels. Certainly, this will solve a big problem in rural areas taking



161

advantage of the environmental conditions of many rural areas where the number of daylight hours a day is high. In the case of Mexico, a programme to incentive the growing of Milpa again is fundamental, because, as it was explained previously and in chapter seven, such practice is part of the most important traditions of the Mexican peasantry. The challenge of constructing a new institutionality for rural development is central in both countries. New people, new professionals, and new ideas must be part of these new institutions. The academic institutions, especially universities, will play a major role in the process of gaining confidence. They must provide professionals that will change the ways to make decisions and implement public policies in rural areas. A significant force of young specialists, sensible to the rural conditions, and willing to work out of the comfort of urban areas, should be the new personnel of the institutions for rural development. They must collaborate with the peasants, who must as well be in charge of maintaining the recently built physical infrastructure, and pointing the way to improve their quality of life and respect their rights. 8.5 Final conclusion Rural development, as a complex problem, requires a methodology to tackle with all its concerns. This study analysed the rural development in a broad way for the purpose of understanding the problems related to it. It is based on a systematic methodology in such a way that it offers alternatives to the stakeholders involved in rural development concerns, to include themes traditionally forgotten. The current research proposes a novel analytical framework that includes most of the topics related but puts emphasis on a political approach to rural development. Given that framework, a set of indicators was selected and applied in Colombia and Mexico. Based on the results obtained, and for the purpose of assessing the impact of the public policies on these results, three public policies of each country were selected and evaluated. Given the whole scenario of the research, the principal conclusion is that the public policies must include social, cultural, and human topics, instead of focusing on productive and economic concerns. Equally, it is imperative to incorporate the environmental concerns in the public policies of rural development, in particular for the activities carried out in the countryside, but which are not necessarily related to agricultural production such as mining, given the fact that the countryside plays a crucial role in the adaptation and mitigation of the effects of climate change. That is why the role of peasants and new professionals in the formulation of these public policies could improve the goal of rural development. Finally, it is important to mention that the current research, its methodology and its findings could be useful to feed the debate of the United Nations initiative called ‘The Sustainable Development Goals’. This programme defined a set of seventeen global goals to be reached in the entire world by 2030. It is interesting to note that the indicators selected in the current research share similarities with the topics covered by the UN global goals. As a complement to the UN initiative, the current research offers an innovative way to organise these themes in the sphere of the patrimonies. Certainly, it opens a new gap for future opportunities of research, which could contribute to the global goals of the United Nations initiative. 8.6 References Alesina, A., Carrasquilla, A., & Echevarría, J. J. (2005). Decentralisation in Colombia. Institutional Reforms: The Case of Colombia, 175–208. Andrade Correa, M. G. (2011). Estado del conocimiento de la biodiversidad en Colombia y sus amenazas. Consideraciones para fortalecer la interacción ciencia-política. Revista de La Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas Y Naturales, 35(137), 491–507.



162

Asche, F., Bellemare, M. F., Roheim, C., Smith, M. D., & Tveteras, S. (2015). Fair Enough? Food Security and the International Trade of Seafood. World Development, 67, 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.10.013 Bartra, A. (2009). Hacer milpa. Ciencias, 92(092). Bates, R. H. (1993). ‘Urban bias’: A fresh look. The Journal of Development Studies, 29(4), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220389308422300 Bernstein, H. (2010). Class dynamics of agrarian change (Vol. 1). Winnipeg: Kumarian Press. Bezemer, D., & Headey, D. (2008). Agriculture, Development, and Urban Bias. World Development, 36(8), 1342–1364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.07.001 Brown, V. A., Harris, J. A., & Russell, J. Y. (2010). Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination. Earthscan. Cabrera, S. (2015). Las reformas en México y el tlcan. Problemas Del Desarrollo, 46(180), 77– 101. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-7036(15)72120-6 Cumbre de la Alimentacion. (1996). FAO. Roma, Noviembre. DANE. (2016). Tercer Censo Nacional Agropecuario. Hay campo para todos. Tomo II. Resultados. Bogota. Defensoría del Pueblo Colombia. (2014). El conflicto armado y el riesgo para la mujer rural. Estudios de caso en los departamentos de Chocó, Córdoba, Santander y Caquetá. Bogotá: Torre gráfica Ltda. Desmarais, A. (2002). PEASANTS SPEAK - The Vía Campesina: Consolidating an International Peasant and Farm Movement. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 29(2), 91–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/714003943 Desmarais, A. (2008). The power of peasants: Reflections on the meanings of La Via Campesina. J. Rural Stud., 24(2), 149. Dowling, A. W., Ruiz-Mercado, G., & Zavala, V. M. (2016). A framework for multistakeholder decision-making and conflict resolution. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 90, 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2016.03.034 Ellis, F., & Biggs, S. (2001). Evolving Themes in Rural Development 1950s-2000s. Development Policy Review, 19(4), 448. FAO. (2003). Trade reforms and food security: Conceptualising the linkages. Rome. FAO. (2015). The State of Food and Agriculture Social protection and agriculture: breaking the cycle of rural poverty. Rome. Feng, S., Krueger, A. B., & Oppenheimer, M. (2010). Linkages among climate change, crop yields and Mexico–US cross-border migration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(32), 14257–14262. Flora, C. B., Flora, J., & Gasteyer, S. (2015). Rural Communities: Legacy and Change (5rd Edition). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.



163

Guzmán Campos, G., Fals Borda, O., & Umaña Luna, E. (1962). La violencia en Colombia. Estudio de Un Proceso Social, 2, 1962–64. Haines, S. (2016). The systems thinking approach to strategic planning and management. CRC Press. Hemmati, M. (2002). Multi-stakeholder processes for governance and sustainability: beyond deadlock and conflict. Routledge. Irvine, A., Drew, P., & Sainsbury, R. (2013). ‘Am I not answering your questions properly?’Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-toface interviews. Qualitative Research, 13(1), 87–106. Jessup, R. L. (2007). Interdisciplinary versus multidisciplinary care teams: do we understand the difference? Australian Health Review, 31(3), 330. Kay. (2005). Enfoques sobre el Desarrollo Rural en América Latina y Europa desde Mediados del Siglo Veinte [Versión electrónica]. Institute of Social Studies de La Haya. Consultado El, 31. Lindhjem, H., & Navrud, S. (2011). Are Internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation? Ecological Economics, 70(9), 1628–1637. Lipton, M. (1977). Why poor people stay poor: urban bias in world development. (Temple Smith). London. Max-Neef, M. A., Elizalde, A., & Hopenhayn, M. (1994). Desarrollo a escala humana: conceptos, aplicaciones y algunas reflexiones (Vol. 66). Icaria Editorial. Miguélez, M. M. (2009). Hacia una epistemología de la complejidad y transdisciplinariedad. Utopía Y Praxis Latinoamericana, 14(46). Mondragón, H. (2002). La organización campesina en un ambiente de terror (Vol. 7). Instituto Latinoamericano de Servicios Legales Alternativos. Morin, E. (1992). From the concept of system to the paradigm of complexity. Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, 15(4), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/1061-7361(92)90024-8 MORIN, E. (1999). Organisation and Complexity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 879(1), 115. Opdenakker, R. (2006). Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research (Vol. 7). Presented at the Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research. Patel, R. (2009). Food sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(3), 663–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150903143079 Pigman, G. A. (2007). The World Economic Forum: a multi-stakeholder approach to global governance. Routledge. Probst, G., & Bassi, A. (2014). Tackling complexity: a systemic approach for decision makers. Greenleaf publishing.



164

Redclift, M. (1984). ‘Urban bias’ and rural poverty: A Latin American perspective. The Journal of Development Studies, 20(3), 123–138. Rivas, E. R., Bernal, L. E. P., & Rodríguez, A. V. (2016). LA POLÍTICA RURAL EN MÉXICO EN LA ETAPA DEL TLCAN Y SU EFECTO EN LA PRODUCTIVIDAD AGRÍCOLA DE LA REGIÓN CENTRO-NORTE DEL PAÍS (Vol. 9, pp. 1001–1018). Presented at the Memorias del Congreso de la Red Internacional de Investigadores en Competitividad. Roberts, W. (2008). The no-nonsense guide to world food. New Internationalist. Rosset, P. (2003). Food sovereignty: global rallying cry of farmer movements. Food First Backgrounder, 9(4), 1–4. Scoones, I. (2015). Sustainable livelihoods and rural development. Winnipeg: Practical Action Publishing. Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Thinking and problem solving (Vol. 2). Elsevier. Taylor, J. E., & López-Feldman, A. (2010). Does migration make rural households more productive? Evidence from Mexico. The Journal of Development Studies, 46(1), 68–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380903198463 Thabrew, L., Wiek, A., & Ries, R. (2009). Environmental decision making in multi-stakeholder contexts: applicability of life cycle thinking in development planning and implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(1), 67–76. UNITED NATIONS. (2015). The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015. New York. Valencia, H. Y. O. (2015). Concepto del campesino y su resignificación desde la protesta social del paro agrario Colombia 2013. Perspectivas Rurales Nueva Época, (26), 23–37. WORLD BANK. (2015). PovcalNet: The on-line tool for poverty measurement developed by the development research group of the World Bank. Retrieved from http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet WORLD BANK. (2016, December 17). The World Bank Data by Country. Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/country/mexico?view=chart



165



166

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS Pachón F; W, Bokelmann & C, Ramírez. (2017). Heritage and patrimony of the peasantry framework to address rural development and its application in Colombia, Acta Agronómica. 66 (3) Pachón F; W, Bokelmann & C, Ramírez. (2017). Heritage and patrimony of the peasantry: a conceptual framework to address rural development. In: Community Capacity and Resilience in Latin America. Edited by Paul R. Lachapelle, Isabel Gutierrez-Montes and Cornelia Butler Flora. Published in New York by Routledge, 2017. Pachón F; W, Bokelmann & C, Ramírez. (2017). Heritage and patrimony of the peasantry framework and its use in Mexico to tackle rural development. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural SOBER. In press Pachón F; W, Bokelmann & C, Ramírez. (2016). Rural development thinking, moving from green revolution to food sovereignty. Agronomía Colombiana. 34(2), 267-276 Pachón-Ariza, F. (2013). Food sovereignty and rural development: beyond food security. Agronomía Colombiana, 31, 362–377. Pachón, F., Bokelmann, W., & Ramirez, C. Participatory Impact Assessment of Public Policies on Rural Development in Colombia and Mexico. International Journal of Rural DevelopmentCuadernos de Desarrollo Rural. In press Conference participations Pachón, F., Bokelmann, W., & Ramirez, C. (2014). Soberanía Alimentaria y Desarrollo rural: más allá de la seguridad alimentaria y el desarrollo agrícola. ALASRU 2014. Ciudad de México. IX Congreso Latinoamericano de Sociología Rural 2014. Pachón, F., Bokelmann, W., & Ramirez, C. (2015). Rural Development Indicators Based on Food Sovereignty Principales: A methodology for its Selection. Presented at the 78th Annual Meeting of Rural Sociological Society, Madison, Wisconsin. USA. Pachón, F., Bokelmann, W., & Ramirez, C. (2016). Rural development thinking, moving from the green revolution to food sovereignty. Presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of Rural Sociological Society, Toronto. Pachón, F., Bokelmann, W., & Ramirez, C. (2016). Heritages of the peasantry: an analytical framework to address rural development. Presented at the 4th Biannual Conference on Nordic Rural Research, Akureyri. Pachón, F., Bokelmann, W., & Ramirez, C. (2016). Heritages of the peasantry framework to address rural development: six case studies in Mexico for its validation. Presented at the XIV World Congress of Rural Sociology 2016. Sustainable and just rural transitions: Connections and complexities, Toronto. Pachón, F., Bokelmann, W., & Ramirez, C. (2016). Application in Colombia of the Heritage and Patrimony of the Peasantry Framework to Address Rural Development. Presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of Rural Sociological Society, Toronto. Pachón, F., Bokelmann, W., & Ramirez, C. (2016). Impact of the public on rural development



167

indicators in Mexico. Accepted to oral presentation at the 80th Annual Meeting of Rural Sociological Society, Columbus, Ohio. Pachón, F., Bokelmann, W., & Ramirez, C. (2016). Assessment of public policies on rural development indicators in Colombia. Accepted to oral presentation at the 80th Annual Meeting of Rural Sociological Society, Columbus, Ohio. Articles under review Pachón, F., Bokelmann, W., & Ramirez, C. Assessing rural development: indicators based on the heritage and patrimony of the peasantry analytical framework. Journal of Rural Development.



168

ANNEXE 1 SURVEY FORM HERITAGES

INDICATOR

Biodiversity

QUESTIONS/ CRITERIA Have peasants here stopped planting some seeds that were used 30 years ago? Have peasants here stopped watching some (wild) animals that were watched 30 years ago? Who makes decisions at home?

Female Participation

Respect to Beliefs

CULTURAL HERITAGE Communal Values

Migration

Does domestic violence exist in your neighbourhood? Do people comply with the beliefs of other people at home and in your neighbourhood? Is solidarity a characteristic of the neighbours when a difficult situation happens? Has a member of your family migrated in the last five years? The availability of hand labour is

Education level

Family Structure

Occupation



169

LEVELS 1. Yes (Examples) 2.We stopped using, but nowadays we are planting again 3. No (Examples) 1. Yes (Examples) 2.We stopped watching, but nowadays we are watching again 3. No (Examples) 1. Men 2. Women 3. Shared with all the family 1. Yes 2. Sometimes 3. No 1. No 2. Sometimes 3. Yes 1. No 2. Sometimes 3. Yes 1. Yes 2. No 3. Someone migrated to study but returned 1. Not available 2. Scarce 3. Abundant 1. At least one family member does not know how to write and read 2. At least one family member that is at school age is not studying 3. All family members have finished at least secondary school 1. At least one family member does not work 2. All family members are working outside

the farm 3. At least one family member is working off the farm

Do you currently have a loan?

Have you received any subsidies from the government over the past five years?

Incomes

You use your incomes to…

Entrepreneurism PHYSICAL HERITAGE

Infrastructure



170

Who makes the decisions about how to spend the family incomes? Does someone in your family belong to a new enterprise to earn incomes? Access to roads in your neighbourhood Access to schools in your neighbourhood Access to electricity in your neighbourhood Access to communication services in your neighbourhood Access to transport network in your neighbourhood Access to health centres in your neighbourhood Access to irrigation in your neighbourhood Access to restrooms in the house Access to clean

1. Yes, with nontraditional institutions 2. Yes, with traditional institutions 3. No, I do not have any 1. No, I have never received 2. I have received, but currently, I don’t have any 3. Yes, currently I have 1. Pay loans 2. Buy inputs (seeds, fertilisers, and so on 3. Ensure family welfare 1. Men 2. Women 3. Shared with all the family 1. No 2. Currently, we do not belong 3. Yes 1. Bad 2. Regular 3. Good 1. Bad 2. Regular 3. Good 1. Bad 2. Regular 3. Good 1. Bad 2. Regular 3. Good 1. Bad 2. Regular 3. Good 1. Bad 2. Regular 3. Good 1. Bad 2. Regular 3. Good 1. Bad 2. Regular 3. Good 1. Bad

water in your home At home, who makes the decisions?

Female Participation

Social Acknowledgment

Respect to Beliefs

SOCIAL HERITAGE

Fundamental Rights

Peasant Organisations

Family Structure



171

Does domestic violence exist in your neighbourhood? Do you think current rural life is better than 10 years ago? Are young people proud to be peasants in your neighbourhood? Do people comply with the beliefs of other people at home and in your neighbourhood? Access to education in your family is Access to information (TV, radio, newspaper,) in your family is Access to education in your family is Access to culture in your neighbourhood is Access to health services in your neighbourhood is Access to old age pension in your family is Do you think that belonging to a peasant organisation has advantages?

Education level

2. Regular 3. Good 1. Men 2. Women 3. Shared with all the family 1. Yes 2. Sometimes 3. No 1. It is less equitable 2. It is equal 3. It is more equitable 1. No 2. Sometimes 3. Yes 1. No 2. Sometimes 3. Yes 1. Bad 2. Regular 3. Good 1. Bad 2. Regular 3. Good 1. Bad 2. Regular 3. Good 1. Bad 2. Regular 3. Good 1. Bad 2. Regular 3. Good 1. Bad 2. Regular 3. Good 1. No, never 2. Sometimes 3. Yes, always 1. At least one family member does not know how to write and read 2. At least one family member that is at school age is not studying 3. All family members

Occupation

Has a member of your family migrated in the last five years? The availability of hand labour is…

Migration

Communal Values

Security

Advantages for Markets

Is solidarity a normal behaviour of the relatives and neighbours when a difficult situation happens? Do you think your neighbourhood is safer than others? Do you currently harvest any particular products? (Organic, green label, etc?) Do you do any post harvest management?

INSTITUTIONAL HERITAGE

The production in your first primary/activity crop is…

Main Crops

The production in your second most important/activity crop is…

The production in your third most important/activity crop is…

Rural Policies



172

Do you think

have finished at least secondary school 1. At least one family member does not work 2. All family members are working outside the farm 3. At least one family member is working outside the farm 1. Yes 2. No 3. Someone migrated to study but returned 1. Non-existent 2. Scarce 3. Abundant 1. No 2. Sometimes 3. Yes 1. No 2. Sometimes 3. Yes 1. No, currently I do not 2. No, I did, but currently, I do not 3. Yes, I do 1. No, currently I do not 2. No, I did, but currently, I do not 3. Yes, I do 1. Less than the average 2. Equal than the average 3. Superior to the average 1. Less than the average 2. Equal than the average 3. Superior to the average 1. Less than the average 2. Equal than the average 3. Superior to the average 1. No

national rural policies are adequate? Can peasants in your neighbourhood participate in the spaces where the decisions are made? Where do you sell your products?

Access to Markets

How do people pay for your products? Are the people who buy the harvest the same that sell the fertilisers in your neighbourhood? Monopoly Do you prefer selling the harvest altogether with your neighbours? Who makes decisions at home?

Female Participation

Social Acknowledgment HUMAN HERITAGE

Perspectives on Life



173

Does domestic violence exist in your neighbourhood? Do you think current rural life is better than 10 years ago? Are young people proud to be peasants in your neighbourhood? Do you usually rest on Sundays or weekends? Do you think the future of rural areas will be better? Is special attention paid to women during the pregnancy and after the childbirth in your neighbourhood?

2. Sometimes 3. Yes 1. No 2. Sometimes 3. Yes 1. To intermediaries 2. In a market close to the farm 3. In the farm 1. Over 60 days 2. 30 days maximum 3. Immediately 1. Yes 2. It happened, but nowadays it does not 3. No 1. No 2. Sometimes 3. Yes 1. Men 2. Women 3. Shared with all the family 1. Yes 2. Sometimes 3. No 1. It is less equitable 2. It is equal 3. It is more equitable 1. No 2. Sometimes 3. Yes 1. No 2. Sometimes 3. Yes 1. No 2. Probably 3. Yes 1. No 2. Sometimes 3. Yes

Fundamental Rights

Rural Policies

Are there any problems with alcohol consumption in your neighbourhood? Access to education in your family is Access to information (TV, radio, newspaper,) in your family is Access to culture in your neighbourhood is Access to health services in your neighbourhood is Access to old age pension in your family is Do you think national rural policies are adequate? Can peasants in your neighbourhood participate in the spaces where the decisions are made? Do you use your farm for...

Land Use

NATURAL HERITAGE

Biodiversity

Recycling



174

Do you have a kind of soil conservation practice? Are you the owner of the farm? Have peasants here stopped planting some seeds that were used 30 years ago? Have peasants here stopped watching some (wild) animals that were watched 30 years ago? Do you have the practice to recycle

1. No 2. Sometimes 3. Yes 1. Bad 2. Regular 3. Good 1. Bad 2. Regular 3. Good 1. Bad 2. Regular 3. Good 1. Bad 2. Regular 3. Good 1. Bad 2. Regular 3. Good 1. No 2. Sometimes 3. Yes 1. No 2. Sometimes 3. Yes

1. Livestock 2. Monoculture 3. Polyculture 1. No, never 2. Sometimes 3. Yes, always 1. No 2. Leasing 3. Yes 1. Yes (Examples) 2.We stopped using, but nowadays we are planting again 3. No (Examples) 1. Yes (Examples) 2.We stopped watching, but nowadays we are watching again 3. No (Examples) 1. No 2. Long time ago, but

at home?

Technical Assistance

Land Characteristics

The quality of the technical support you receive is… The large share of your farm is used … Do you think the quality of the soil in your farm is...

Security

Pluriactivity

Do you think your neighbourhood is safer than others? Are members of your family working off the farm? When they work off the farm, they do it …

Do you currently have a loan?

Have you received any subsidies from the government over the past five years?

Incomes

You use your incomes to…

ECONOMIC HERITAGE Entrepreneurism

Land Characteristics



175

Who makes the decisions about how to spend the family incomes? Does someone in your family belong to a new enterprise to earn incomes? The high share of your farm is used to…

nowadays no 3. Yes 1. Low 2. Medium 3. High 1. Contrary to the soil type 2. Partly according to the soil type 3. According to the soil type 1. Low 2. Medium 3. High 1. No 2. Sometimes 3. Yes 1. Men and women 2. Nobody 3. Just men 1. Full time 2. Part time 3. In a hand labour scheme (minga) 1. Yes, with nontraditional institutions 2. Yes, with traditional institutions 3. No, I do not have any 1. No, I have never received 2. I have received, but currently, I do not have any 3. Yes, currently I have 1. Pay loans 2. Buy inputs (seeds, fertilisers, and so on 3. Ensure family welfare 1. Men 2. Women 3. Shared with all the family 1. No 2. Currently, we do not belong 3. Yes 1. Contrary to the soil type 2. Partly according to the soil type 3. According to the

Do you think the quality of the soil in your farm is... The production in your first primary/activity crop is…

Main Crops

The production in your second most important/activity crop is…

The production in your third most important/activity crop is…

Where do you sell your products?

Access to Markets

Technical Assistance

Advantages for Markets

How do people pay for your products? Are the people who buy the harvest the same that sell the fertilisers in your neighbourhood? Monopoly Do you prefer selling the harvest altogether with your neighbours? The quality of the technical support you receive is… Do you currently harvest any particular products? (Organic, green label, etc?) Do you do some post harvest management?



176

soil type 1. Low 2. Medium 3. High 1. Less than the average 2. Equal than the average 3. Superior to the average 1. Less than the average 2. Equal than the average 3. Superior to the average 1. Less than the average 2. Equal than the average 3. Superior to the average 1. To intermediaries 2. In a market close to the farm 3. In the farm 1. Over 60 days 2. 30 days maximum 3. Immediate 1. Yes 2. It happened, but nowadays not 3. No 1. No 2. Sometimes 3. Yes 1. Low 2. Medium 3. High 1. No, currently, I do not 2. No, I did, but currently, I do not 3. Yes, I do 1. No, currently, I do not 2. No, I did, but currently, I do not 3. Yes, I do

Declaration I hereby declare that the present thesis has not been submitted as a part of any other examination procedure and has been independently written. All passages, including those from the internet, which were used directly or in modified form, especially those sources using text, graphs, charts or pictures, are indicated as such. I realize that an infringement of these principles which would amount to either an attempt of deception or deceit will lead to the institution of proceedings against myself.

Date:______________



Signature:______________________________________

177