Local Organizations and Rural Development in the Douro-Duero Region of Portugal and Spain 1

Artur Cristóvão, Alberto Baptista and Raquel Miranda [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro Department of Economics, Sociology and Management Av. Almeida Lucena 1, 5000-660 Vila Real Portugal ABSTRACT Many organizations today work in the rural areas of Portugal, Spain and throughout Europe, attempting to implement strategies able to promote the local economy and sustainable livelihoods. These organizations – public, private or third -, work in diverse fields, such as education and training, social and economic development, environmental protection or cultural promotion. The paper presents a critical and comparative analysis of organizational dynamics in the Douro area of Portugal and Spain, identifying problems, issues, initiatives and challenges to the sustainability of such organizations. This research was inspired by the recent theoretical reflections about local development, the importance of social capital and social territorial competitiveness, the State-civil society relationships, the new models of participation and participatory democracy, and the creation of partnerships and networks as an asset to development work. The research was part of a EU funded INTERREG Project “Douro-Duero Século XXI” -, jointly conducted by the Universities of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (Portugal) and Salamanca (Spain). The studied area, characterized by its rurality, relative isolation, and low population density, is a living space in organizational terms. This work allowed us to understand that local development organizations are numerous, have very different histories, have interventions in diverse domains and in different territorial scales, from the parish or municipality to broader areas, and face a wide range of problems, being organizational sustainability a major one. Introduction and Theoretical Orientation In the recent past, only about 30 year ago, both Portugal and Spain were countries under dictatorships. Paradoxly, very little cooperation existed between institutions across borders. In very few years this picture changed drastically and, as stressed by Rodríguez-Spiteri (2001, 24), bilateral relationships between the two States were object of an “historical accelaration”, particularly after the integration of both countries in the European Community, in 1986. Today, the border territories are, more and more, spaces of cooperation and joint 2 construction of develpment paths. The EU INTERREG Initiative has contributed to this objective, and an example is the Project under which this research was conducted, that united the Universities of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (Portugal) and Salamanca (Spain). This Project, entitled “Douro-Duero Século XXI”, aimed at the promotion of rural sustainable development, by defining strategies and actions based on local resources and interinstitutional partnerships. In its frame, the organizational issues deserved close attention, given its crucial importance in a time where citizens are confronted with multiple challenges, particularly in peripheral areas lagging behind in terms of development. This research was inspired by recent theoretical reflections on globalization and local development, the importance of social capital and territorial competitiveness, the State-civil society relationships, the new models of participation and participatory democracy, and the creation of partnerships and networks as an asset to a continued development work.

1

The authors aknowledge the contribution to field work given by Manuel Luís Tibério and Sónia Abreu, and the review of the text done by Timothy Koehnen. 2 INTERREG is a EU Initiative aiming at the development of social and economic cohesion, and the promotion of border, trans-national and inter-regional cooperation.

In many rural areas, the globalization process directed by financial and business interests led to marginalization and population exodus, as a result of the concentration of attention and resources in areas considered to be more productive and profitable. On the other side, pressure upon the State has reinforced this trend, leading to policies that favour the zones and activities more capable to reproduce capital or to those that have more population pressure (Moreira, 2001:137). These “global social mutations”, as stressed by Bryden (1998), also provide new perspectives to rural areas. This author mentioned the growing importance of the notions of territory and local identity, and identified a set of alternative opportunities, such as the access to new markets, the creation of new activities in the service and environment sectors, the attraction of new residents, and the development of cultural, leisure and tourism activities in rural areas. For those working at the field level, in fragile areas like the Portuguese-Spanish border of the Douro valley, corresponding to the regions of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro and Castilla and León, the challenge is to explore the margins to manoeuvre, in order to fight the observed marginalization trends and to promote people and community-centred development projects that use endogenous resources and consider the competitive advantages of the territory. In such process, the notions of people-centred development (Korten, 1990), empowerment (Pretty et al., 1995; Shor, 1992)), and social capital (Monteiro, 2004; Putnam, 1996) are critical. Local organizations become important elements, as part of the social capital, as instruments for power (re)distribution in society, and as appropriate spaces to educate for democracy and active citizenship. Besides, in present times, they tend to fill the intervention gaps of both the public and the private sectors (Clark, 1995: 59). Objectives and Project Construction Many organizations operate today in the rural areas of Portugal, Spain, and throughout Europe, attempting to implement strategies able to promote the local economy and sustainable livelihoods. These organizations – public, private or third sector related -, work in diverse fields, such as education and training, social and economic development, environmental protection or cultural promotion (Neves, 1995; Portela, 1999). In the frame of this project, the research looked at the organizations concerned with local development, with the aim of comparing dynamics across borders and stimulationg more cooperation. In more specific terms, the objectives were: (1) To analyse and compare organizational processes and dynamics related to rurallocal development; (2) To identify obstacles to better performance of these organizations and specific challanges to its sustainability; and (3) To strengten partnersips and networks envolving research institutions, development agencies and public bodies related to rural-local development in the concerned territory. The work was initiated in October 2003, with exploratory field contacts, in order to discuss the project aim and objectives, and to design the local institutional map, that is, to have information about the organizations working in the field. At the end of this phase a Seminar was held in the region, to involve a variety of local actors, by presenting the project, and talking about the organizational issues and methodologies to further study them (Cristóvão, Tibério e Abreu, 2004). These activities were followed by document analysis and two moments of data collection: (1) A mail survey questionnaire send out to 115 organizations (90 in Portugal and 25 in Spain), of which 42 were received (29 from Portugal and 13 from Spain, representing a response rate of 37%,). This questionnaire include a set of questions on: identification of the organization; history; number and type of members; area of intervention; objectives and fields of activity; services provided; sources of funding and involvement in EU or national programs and projects; human resources; and cooperation in the border space; (2) A series of case studies of different types of organizations activelly involved in local development animation work, prepared trough field visits and open-ended interviews with directors and technical staff. These interviews looked at the following issues:

history of the organization and major motivations to create it; objectives, approaches and activities; structure, leadership and resources; relationships with other organizations and involvement in parnerships and networks; changes or impacts produced; and organizational sustainability. A total of 16 cases was prepared, 9 in Portugal and 7 in Spain. Taking into consideration the global institutional map and the response to the mail questionnnaire, this last phase of the study considered the following three major types of organizations: (1) Linked to agriculture and natural resources, mainly cooperatives and producers’ associations; (2) Linked to local or community development, some with an integrated perspective and others with a more specific focus (women, crafts, culture, social action, local heritage or tourism), mostly associations; and (3) Linked to business and entrepeneurship development, mostly associations. In the end of the Project, in June 2005, a second Seminar was organized, to share the results and debate the major conclusions, issues and recommendations. Each Seminar was attended by 40 to 50 people from Portugal and Spain, including university researchers, directors and members of local organizations, local governement representatives and public servants working in agriculture and environment related services. It is important to stress that this research was complementary to work done before, and didnt attempt to involve all types of local development organizations. The field of culture and recreation was deliberatly underestimated, given the previous studies by Pereiro et al. (2002), who surveyd and characterized a representative number of associations in the border area and further developed action-research work with them. Organizational Dynamics in the Douro-Duero The Portuguese-Spanish border territory of the Douro-Duero, characterized by its rurality, relative isolation, and low population density, is a living space in organizational terms (about the territory see Box 1). This work, with all its limitations, allowed us to understand that local development organizations are numerous, have very different histories, some being relatively old and others novel, have interventions in diverse domains and in different territorial scales, from the parish or municipality to broader areas. Box 1 The Douro-Duero Region of Portugal and Spain The studied region corresponds to a border area along the Douro river in the Portuguese province of “Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro”, and the Spanish region of “Castillla y León”. It is characterized by a deep population regression, ageing, and low population density (total population of about 60.000, 15 inhabitants/Km2 in the Portuguese side and between 8 and 15 inhabitants/Km2 in the Spanish one). Most villages are inhabited by elderly people. Farming is the major economic activity, but the number of farm holdings has been decreasing and the pattern of agriculture activities changing, with less annual crops and more permanent crops (olive and almond orchards, vineyards). Beef cattle, sheep and pigs are important animal productions. Industrial activities are scarce and services are concentrated in the small towns. In the area there are two twin Natural Parks, one in Spain and one other in Portugal. Tourism activities, especially rural and eco-tourism, have potential and have been growing in the past decade.

All organizations share a common preoccupation, to defend the territory, fighting against the problems and negative trends, and attempting to value resources, develop the local potential, and take advantage of opportunities to conquer competitiveness. Summarizing, they act to reverse the socio-economic decline and the tendencies shown by most studies and prognostics. If it is clear that many of these organizations look at implementing alternative development paths in their territories, it is questionalble if they work under a “territory-project” logic (Melo,

2003), that is, with a strategic view and in articulation with other actors. In fact, many operate in a more or less isolated fashion, implementing activities that are not part of a global plan. 3 The LEADER related development associations, resulting from broader partneships, working according to an Action Plan with an interdisciplinary technical team, are the closest to the “territory-project” perspective, with the limitations resulting form the nature of this EU program, particularly the limited funds and issues covered. Talking about programs, most organizations, in their plans and daily practices, show strong relationships to the EU, national, regional or local policies. The relationships with the local and regional adiministrations are evident, as are the importance of the EU Initiatives, LEADER and INTERREG in particular. In the Portuguese case, it is quite common the involvement in programs managed by the public bodies related to Training & Employment, Agriculture & Rural Development, and Environment & Nature Conservation. These programs facilitate progress, but also generate problems, for instance in terms of coping with bureaucracy, endebtment (due to late reimbursements) and dependency (on policies and public funding). The obstacles to the work of local organizations are many and diverse, as expected. Besides the difficult work context, marked by population decline and negative socioeconomic trends, organizations have to face an administation often not sensitive to problems and not prepared to act in a concerted way and with a territorial perspective. The population is ageing, young people run away from agriculture, entrepreneurs are scarce, parnerships are difficult to maintain, the State is distant and slow, funds arrive late, and the organizations manage their activities in cycles of progression and retraction, facing the lack of financial resources and the instability of the technical teams. In essence, we confirmed the conclusions of Moreno (2003), in a broader study of local development organizations and initiatives in Portugal. The major problems and difficulties have to do with a strong financial dependency from the State, that generates a context of uncertainty and jeopardizes the possibility of acting regularly and sustainably with a strategic sense a according to a plan. Citizen and community participation seem to be difficult to implement. At the organization level, it is not easy to mobilize people to assume leadership positions, and the same persons tend to be in power for a long period. The presention of alternative lists in elections is very rare, and a process of rotation of places occurs, involving the same or very similar group of people. This problem, understandable in a context of population scarcity, can also emerge from the fact that many organizations depend on a nucleous of elements with more power and willingness to participate in community matters. In this situation, the challenge is to assume an active position of power redistribution, aiming at the involvement of the hard to reach and difficult to involve people. If this possibility is not considered, it is likely that more power concentration and exclusion of the less participative will happen. Regarding the participation of members, usually very reduced, the challenge is to break the common logic of accomodation and passivity, assuming that mobilization and animation activities are needed. These activities are, in a way, the possible path to create spaces of encounter and communication, promoting the exchange of ideas and collective learning. Mobilization and animation are, as well, a form of creating the neccessary spirit of identification and sense of belonging to the organization, that seem to be a problem in many cases. The community is the reason for the existence of all organizations, and its participation presented as crucial. Some stressed the difficulty of such participation, and others present stories of success. In general, however, a type of reactive participation dominates, and problems of “belonging to” and “identification with” the organizations persist. The recent history of dictatorships in both countries are still present, and the youth of democracy and incipient nature of the civil society are visible. In these particular domains the scope for organizational learning and growth is quite broad, and it is vital to create or revitalize spaces of communication with citizens and communities, from meetings and workshops, to study circles, learning groups, participatory planning fora, and popular media. 3

The EU LEADER Initiative (Links Between Rural Development Actions) was launched in the early 90’s, as an experimental and innovative program to promote local development in rural areas. It is based in a territorial perspective, stressing the use bottom-up approaches through parnership arrangements and local animation teams.

In places with low population density and development problems, and in situations where many local organizations exist, interinstitutional cooperation is an irrefusable option. Agreements and contracts, networks, partnerships and other mechanisms to cooperate, formally or informally, strengten the density of the institutional tissue and permit it to gain power and to reinforce the intervention, accomplishing the perspective of “territory-project”. In the studied area there is a long way to go to build the network, gain relational density and acquire negotiation power. When talking about partnerships and networks it is also important to mention the cooperation across borders. The EU Initiative INTERREG has spread out the cooperation seeds, and many organizations are involved in projects, in different fields related to local and regional development. The same could be said about the LEADER program. In general, only the stronger organizations, better equiped in human resources and with better technical capacity, are engaged. The smaller and sector-oriented ones, tend to remain outside of such cooperation initiatives. In matters of border cooperation, it emerged the idea that it is still very incipient and based on projects that lack continuity. If some organizations show some maturity in this respect, most others have no experience at all. However, it is crucial that the institutional tissues of Douro-Duero get crossed and gain density, as development issues are the same or similar, and the paths to explore have a lot in common. The results of development interventions are disseminated in the territory and related to a broad range of aspects. We could see advances in the territorialization process, gains of competence and self-esteem, growth in power and capacity to atract resources, increased consciousness about the value of local resources and the possibility to use them sustainably. The interviewed actors are aware of these changes, but question the possibility to sustain them, given the socio-economic context and their limitations in terms of financial and technical autonomy. The sustainability of local development organizations is an issue. In fact, most of them rely on public funds to work and survive. Although providing services of public interest, clearly needed by citizens and communities, they don’t see this effort dully recognized by the State. Such situation leads to the issue of State-civil society relationships, and to the construction of instruments capable of facilitating symetric partnerships and assuring less bureaucracy, favourable fiscal systems and adequate financial support (ANIMAR, 2003; Cristóvão et al., 2004). Three Major Ideas for a Sustainable Future As stressed before, the challenges to local development work and a better performance of the studied ( and other) organizations are multiple. The following three complementary ways should be considered (Amalric, 1999; Cristóvão, 1999; Pimbert and Pretty, 1995; Stahl, 1999): (1) To defend the sustainability of local development organizations, that requires: improved leadership and technical capacities; promotion of a culture of democracy and participation; better visibility of the work and accomplishments, at the local, regional and national levels; continuous construction of networks and partnerships, at variuos spacial levels; (2) To promote a new type or style of intervention, both in the State institutions (from the national to the local level) and local development organizations, actor-oriented, interdisciplinary, and considering the social energy of the territory, in contrast with the normal intervention style, top-down, essentially sectorial, unidisciplinary, and technicist; and (3) To build intelligent territories, with the capability to learn by generating dynamic processes of social or collective learning, namelly through: active exchanges of information; continuous human resource training and development; open exchange of experiences; permanent dialogue with other territories; creation of interfaces between actors (networks, parnerships, linkage committees, etc.), active involvement of research and other knowledge related centres; stimulus to innovation and creativity; in a word, open mobilization of the territorial social capital.

References Amalric, F. (1999). Natural Resources, Governance and Social Justice. Development, Vol. 42, Nº 2, pp. 5-12. ANIMAR (2003). Teses da V Assembleia do Desenvolvimento Local, Manifesta 2003. Lisboa: ANIMAR. Bryden, J. (1998). Novas Perspectivas para a Europa Rural: Tendências Globais e Respostas Locais. LEADER Magazine, Nº 18, pp. 4-12. Clark, J. (1995). The State, Popular Participation and the Voluntary Sector. World Development, Vol. 23, Nº 4, pp. 593-601. Cristóvão, A. (1999). Para a Valorização dos Recursos Naturais do Vale do Douro. Douro – Estudos e Documentos, Vol. IV (8), pp. 19-31. Cristóvão, A., M. L. Tibério and S. Abreu (2004). Relatório do I Seminário da Acção 4.2 do Projecto INTERREG IIIA Douro-Duero Século XXI. Vila Real: UTAD/CETRAD. Cristóvão, A., Melo, A., Moreno, L., Monteiro and A. E J. Brás (2004). Relacionamento Estado-OCS/OIDL, Bases para o Debate sobre uma Carta de Relacionamento. Documento de Trabalho apresentado no Encontro Nacional de ODL – Os Novos Desafios do Desenvolvimento Local. Santárém: ANIMAR. Korten, D. (1990). Getting to the 21st Century: Voluntary Action and the Global Agenda. West Hartford: Kumarian Press. Melo, A. (2003). As Organizações da Economia Social e Solidária na Construção de uma Democracia Participativa e de um Desenvolvimento Sustentável. Texto de Conferência da ULHT. Lisboa: ULHT. Moreira, M. B. (2001). Globalização e Agricultura. Zonas Rurais Desfavorecidas. Oeiras: Celta Editora. Monteiro, A. (2004). Associativismo e Novos Laços Sociais. Coimbra: Quarteto. Moreno, L., Coord. (2003). Guia das Organizações e Iniciativas de Desenvolvimento Local. Lisboa: ANIMAR. Neves, J. (1995). Iniciativas de Desenvolvimento Local em Meio Rural. Tese de Mestrado em Geografia Humana e Planeamento Regional e Local, apresentada à Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa. LISBOA: FL, UL. Pereiro, X., P. Silva, C. Pinto and C. Martins (2002). Relatório de Injvestigação do Projecto Filandouro nos Concelhos do Planalto Mirandês. Miranda do Douro: UTAD. Pimbert, M. P. and J. N. Pretty (1995). Parks, People and Professionals: Putting "Participation" into Protected Area Management. UNRISD Discussion Paper 57. Geneva: UNRISD. Portela, J. (1999). O Meio Rural em Portugal: Entre o Ontem e o Amanhã. Trabalhos de Etnologia e Antropologia, Vol. XXXXIX, Nos. 1/2; pp. 45-65. Pretty, J, I. Guijt, I. Scoones and J. Thomson (1995). Participatoy Learning and Action: A Trainer’s Guide. London: IIED. Putnam, R. (1996). Comunidade e Democracia – A Experiência da Itália Moderna. Rio de Janeiro: Editora da Fundação Getúlio Vargas. Rodríguez-Spiteri, J. (2001). Espanha e Portugal: Balance de una Amistad. In Fundação Rei Afonso Henriques, Espanha-Portugal Horizonte 2010, pp. 33-27. Zamora: FRA. Shor, I. (1992). Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Stahl, T. (1999). Stimulating Regional Innovativeness: The Learning Region. In CEDEFOP, Towards the Learning Region: Education and Regional Innovation in the EU and USA, pp. 51-60. Thessaloniki: CEDEFOP.