Towards a Rural Sustainable Development? Contributions of the EAFRD 2007-2013 in Low Demographic Density Territories. The case of Extremadura (SW Spain)

Abstract

Abstract:The European Commission has been striving to achieve sustainable development in its rural areas for more than 25 years through funds aimed at modernizing the agricultural and forestry sectors, protecting the environment and improving the quality of life. But is sustainable rural development really being accomplished? This study sets out to answer this question in the case of Extremadura, a Spanish territory with Low Demographic Density and a Gross Domestic Product still below 75 % of the European average. Both qualitative and quantitative methodology have been employed, using a Principal Component Analysis the result of which has provided us with a model which shows how various behaviors coexist in the region in view of the distribution of current funding from the EAFRD. The most dynamic areas have received the largest amounts of funding and these are linked to the agricultural sector and to the protection of the environment, leaving aside the more depressed areas and the implementation of the LEADER Approach as well. Therefore, we have come to the conclusion that the current rural development in Extremadura is not sustainable enough.

Who Decides and Who Invests? The Role of the Public, Private and Third Sectors in Rural Development according to Geographical Contexts: The LEADER Approach in Andalusia, 2007–2015

“…On the other, the opposite occurs in the most remote and peripheral ones [43] (Dijkstra et al, 2015). The same happens when we verify that the most dynamic rural areas and better starting situations have a more relevant implementation of LEADER initiatives, as evidenced by Cañete et al [44,45] for Andalusian rural areas, and for Extremadura by Cárdenas and Nieto [46]. LEADER's neoliberal philosophy requires the initial initiative of public or private actors, which, in the second case, is unequal territorially.…”

Entrepreneurs and Territorial Diversity: Success and Failure in Andalusia 2007–2015

“…However, we believe that the important thing is their constant presence in rural areas with near average or above average values, even in Remote and Deep Rural areas. A fact that should be emphasised given that these areas are the most vulnerable, least dynamic and generally most neglected by promoters of LEADER projects [4,6,87]. They are also areas in which the population is not only poorer but feels poorer, a fact that highlights the need for territorial policies to take into account the heterogeneous nature of municipalities [88] in the design of these policies in which a greater role must be given to the variables of economic geography [89].…”

“…Originally established as an European Economic Community (EEC) Initiative (1991)(1992)(1993)(1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006) implemented through Local Action Groups (LAGs) made up of entrepreneurs, public institutions and civic associations, it was later integrated (since 2007) into the corresponding national and regional Rural Development Programmes, with specific LEADER actions. Its implementation, with varying degrees of success [1][2][3], has revealed among other things: the unequal territorial distribution of LEADER funds [4][5][6][7][8]; the development of important social innovation processes in rural areas [9,10]; the varying participation of the different stakeholders as promoters of LEADER projects [11,12]; the vital importance of social capital in rural development processes [13][14][15][16][17]; and the importance for rural development of the promotion and enhancement of natural and cultural heritage, both as cohesive elements of local identity that must be protected and as hugely powerful assets for enhancing rural tourism. These are both emblematic aspects of the LEADER programme.…”

Strategic approach to the territorial distribution of EAFRD projects

“…Previous studies highlighted important differences between countries and development regions regarding absorption of EU rural development funds, with most funding being absorbed by the most developed areas (Cárdenas Alonso & Nieto Masot, 2017;Sin, Nowak & Burlacu, 2020;Beluhova-Uzunova & Hristov, 2020;Kiryluk-Dryjska, Beba & Poczta, 2020;Dax, Machold & Roberts, 2022).…”