Balancing between governing styles Participatory practices in rural Galicia

Marlies Meijer

Balancing between governing styles Participatory practices in rural Galicia

This thesis is written as final assignment for the master Landscape Architecture and Planning, specialisation Spatial Planning at Wageningen University.

LUP-80436

SupervisionAdri van den Brink, Land Use PlanningDirk Roep, Rural Sociology AuthorMarlies Meijer (reg.nr. 850725567120)Wageningen, June 2010

Table of contents

1 Introduction 71.1 Positioning the researcher 8

1.1.1 What does spatial planning mean to me 81.1.2 Link with rural issues 9

1.2 Scope of research 101.3 Reading this thesis 10

2 Methodology 132.1 Social Constructivism 132.2 Strategies of inquiry 14

2.2.1 Grounded theory and ethnographic approach 142.2.2 Case study selection 162.2.3 Interview and observation styles 162.2.4 Serendepity 17

3 A short introduction to Spain and Galicia 193.1 Galicia – country of the Celts 193.2 Spain – civil war and Franco’s regime 233.3 After Franco – transition towards democracy 253.4 Becoming part of the EU – impact of regulations and subsidies 26

4 The meaning of property – land abandonment 27

5 The uxfor-policy 335.1 Uxfor, background and general information 335.2 Policy-makers 375.3 A deadlock in implementation of uxfor-policy 41

6 Three uxfors – local practices 456.1 Chantada 456.2 Fonsagarada 506.3 O Incio 546.4 Deadlock or continuation – different responses 58

7 Analysis – From paternalism to a participatory approach 617.1 From paternalism to (good) governance 62

7.1.1 Paternalism 627.1.2 Clientalism 637.1.3 Good governance / A new kind of policy-making 64

7.2 The participatory discourse 677.2.1 Social Capital 687.2.2 Endogenous development 707.2.3 Partnerships and participatory approaches. 72

8 Conclusion - Balancing between governing styles 758.1 Fast policy implementation 768.2 Expectations from society 768.3 Participatory approach and depopulation 778.4 Recommendations 78

8.4.1 Participatory practices 788.4.2 Future research 78

LiteratureAcknowledgementsSummary Resumen

Annex 1 – Interviewee schemeAnnex 2 – Explanatory word listAnnex 3 – Article: Planning realities in Galicia

1 Introduction

7

This thesis is about many things. Mostly it is about Galicia and how government and citizens try to deal with new ways of policy-making and implementation. Galicia is a region in the north-west of Spain. I ended up there almost by coincidence, or by a sequence of many causes and effects. Therefore this thesis is also about the development of subjects of research and my personal quest for “how things work in Galicia”. Step by step I revealed the relations between Galicia’s (and Spain’s) history, the problems experienced at the countryside, the role governments and local actors played and their context. At the same time I got a better understanding of my personal interests and background as a student in spatial planning and rural sociology. The process of writing this thesis did not resemble a straight road, but more a curving mountain road, with new and different views at every curve. During every stage (writing the research proposal, the fieldwork and analysis of the results) new answers and questions arose, together with other ways of representing them. This report is the end product of that quest. In this chapter my starting position as a researcher is introduced (1.1), followed by the scope of this research (1.2) and set up for the next chapters (1.3).

Balancing between multiple realities

“Only when we travel, and meet strangers, do we recognise other ways of being human” (Patsy Healey in Collaborative Planning, after Latour).

So here I am, travelling (or balancing) between land use planning and rural sociology, my Dutch planning knowledge and the Galician rural reality, between reading in Gallego, speaking in Castellano, writing in English and chatting in Dutch, between the Spanish working hours and my Dutch empty stomach. … Back in the Netherlands, I was aware of the Dutch context of my education so far. Most examples provided are Dutch, or could be placed in the planning Dutch context. I wanted to broaden my scope, go somewhere where policy making is less evident and face the effect of a different cultural context, but also to experience a real rural area. Now I find it hard to let the familiar Dutch context go and to explain what I exactly do study in the Netherlands (something like geography, people making plans and rural development) and what my research is about (even more vague). Multi-faceted policy, focused on the spatial environment, does not exist here, as it exists in the Netherlands. So I keep on balancing, and exploring and let myself be surprised every day by the Galician way of doing.

(personal blog, posted on ruralsociologywageningen.wordpress.com, june 2009)

8

1.1 Positioning the researcherThe beginning of this thesis does not lie at the moment I set foot to the ground of Galicia. During my whole education at Wageningen and maybe even before a bedrock was formed for the questions I asked myself, and others, in Galicia. In this section I would like to make this bedrock explicitly, in order to give more insight in the way I conducted this research and in the research results.

There are many roads that led to doing my Master thesis research in a foreign country and maybe even Spain in particular. For example one could say my interest in Hispanic culture was augmented when I choose Spanish language as an optional subject at secondary school. But even then, I would not have chosen Spanish if I was not interested in travelling and maybe even studying abroad. For a student with core subjects like biology, physics and chemistry choosing Spanish was not that logical. On the other hand it could also have been coincidence. The Spanish course was new and many students choose it. Initially I wanted to do it only during one year, to master the basics. However after that year the study load seemed to be reasonable and I decided to continue. Moreover the second year included a 10-day excursion to Barcelona and I didn’t want to miss that. In the end I joined the Spanish course during three years and completed the exam.

This example shows that small choices and coincidences could lead to bigger actions. These choices and actions tell something about me as a student and about what I did in Galicia. They tell something about the “glasses I was wearing” when I conducted my research. The next sections introduce the reader in the personal background of the writer and how this thesis came into being. The next chapters cannot be seen apart from this background.

1.1.1 What does spatial planning mean to meHaving a BSc in spatial planning, and being at the final stage of a MSc in the same subject, it is clear that spatial planning covers the major part of my academic education. But spatial planning can be regarded in many ways. Some people see planning as lines and coloured dots on maps, which represent different kinds of land use or imply future developments like urban expansion or new roads. The lines and dots are mostly drawn somewhere for a reason. These reasons also give way to different forms of planning. A planner could for instance focus on the physical circumstances of a certain area, or pay attention to the opinion of stakeholders related to the new developments. A planner could use GIS-based tools for analysis or participatory methods. During my BSc I focused on this side of spatial planning, where landscape, land use changes and wishes of stakeholders play a central role. Most practical work was focused on developing a spatial plan for the future situation of a certain area.

9

Now I like to reflect on planning as a game that is played by governments, local stakeholders and all others involved. How these players play the game, try to influence each other and represent their stakes and realities is, I think, very interesting. The rules of the game are mostly provided by the central or decentralised governments, depending on the level of the matter regarded. Mostly, rules are designed for general circumstances and can be applied to specific situations in different ways. Some room for manoeuvring could emanate between intention and application. On the one hand this makes a flexible planning process and rules applicable for many situations possible. On the other hand might actors use this space for achieving their objectives, manipulate the planning process or bent the rules towards their interests. Whether this is a negative movement or how it should be dealt with in the planning game can be regarded in many ways, wherefore different schools of thought arise. Personally I am more interested in the motives of actors for spatial interventions instead of the creation of ideal type situations. My previous MSc thesis was about the relation between problems and solutions and how stakeholders deal with them. It turned out that there was not always a clear or chronological relation between problems and solutions. Conversely, stakeholders mostly seemed to be able to rationalise this relation in a chronological way (Holtslag and Meijer 2008). For this thesis I wanted to focus on participatory forms of policy-making and the relation between local citizens and governmental officials; in particularly in rural areas. In the next paragraph the research subjects I was interested in, related to writing this thesis, will be discussed more extensively.

1.1.2 Link with rural issuesThe relation between bottom-up and top-down interventions, and with that the relation between local stakeholders and governmental officials, was what I wanted to examine during this master thesis. During my internship at a small consultancy agency (Aequator Groen & Ruimte B.V.) I often saw that this relation can be problematic in the Netherlands. Bottom-up initiatives were often (unintentionally) blocked by rules and regulations from higher level governments. As I already spent most of my curriculum studying the Dutch situation, I wanted to go somewhere where things work differently. Somewhere where the situation is different and the institutional framework is set up in a different way. Via contacts of the rural sociology group I found a place to work in Galicia, Northern Spain. At that moment my main assumption was that in Spain, compared to the Netherlands, the institutional framework is less strict and less organised. I assumed that a flexible way of dealing with spatial planning is exercised in Spain. However, there was another reason to go to Galicia.

After a guest lecture during my BSc I decided to focus on rural development. I wrote my BSc thesis about the relation between spatial planning and rural development, in practice and research. At this time the link between the two fields was rudimentary present, but did not get a lot of attention (Meijer 2006). The way I like to study spatial planning is in my opinion closely related to rural sociology and rural development. In rural sociology relations between

10

people (farmers, experts, governments) and how they deal with their environment also play a central role. As my specialisation is spatial planning I do not study rural development on farm-level itself, nor on farming styles or rural life (as is mostly the case in rural sociology), but I study rural development from a regional level.

1.2 Scope of researchAll these topics of interest and previous experiences led to a few initial questions that I kept on asking myself during my stay in Galicia. The main thing I wanted to know was how the planning game is played in Galicia; how does this work when nobody is talking about spatial policy-making? I especially focused on the relation and interaction between the regional government (Xunta) and local citizens, as this was for me one of the most interesting topics. How were local citizens enabled to participate in the policy-making process and did they really participate? Was there room for bottom-up processes and if so, how did this work? The longer I stayed in Galicia, the more I understood about policy-making practices there and its social context. My interest in participatory approaches in spatial policy-making led to the uxfor-policy. The uxfor-policy aims at the collective management of private parcels of production forest. This is Galicia’s first spatial policy set up in a bottom-up way. By interviewing policy-makers and local citizens within this project, their mutual relation became clear, just as the complex context of spatial policy-making in Galicia and the coming into being of a participatory ideal. Shortly the scope of this research involves:

To study the emergence of a participatory approach and the role governments and citizens play in it, in the social context of spatial policy-making in rural Galicia and the uxfor-policy in particular.

1.3 Reading this thesisThis chapter (chapter 1) gave insight in my personal starting position, the subjects I was interested in and what drove me to Galicia in the first place. In chapter 2 the methodology for conducting this research is presented. The methods used are based on a tentative way of conducting research, which incorporates the notion that facts can be explained/interpreted in multiple ways. Chapters 3 and 4 introduce the history of Galicia and the most pressing issues on the countryside. Land abandonment (chapter 4) takes a special position in this. As 25% of Galicia’s surface does not have a clear allocation or a clear owner, it is simply not in use. Chapters 5 and 6 are about (a case study of ) participatory practices in Galicia. During my stay I examined one project closely. Galicia’s government was looking for a new way to deal with land abandonment, maintenance of production forests and involvement of the local population (and in particular land owners). This new way became the uxfor-policy. An uxfor is a unit in which private production forests are collectively managed. How and why this policy came into being, how it was implemented and how land owners

11

responded will be illustrated in chapter 5 from a policy-makers point of view and in chapter 6 from a local perspective. In the next chapter (chapter 7) participatory practices in rural Galicia are analysed and clarified from literature. Here the uxfor-policy will be placed into a bigger picture, about policy-making (and implementing) ideals and European practices. Chapter 8 will draw conclusions on the relation between governments and citizens within a participatory approach of spatial policy-making.

When writing this thesis I had to rethink my position and the structure of the research many times. Just as many times I was surprised and fascinated by the Galician way of doing. Mostly I tried to find an explanation for what I observed and to fit that into an understandable context. Sometimes I just had to accept that things were differently. I hope you, as reader, are able to do the same.

12

13

2 Methodology

This thesis is the end product of a personal journey through Galicia and the exploration of the spatial policy-making system in rural areas here. In order to present the findings clearly, this thesis is set up from mainly a personal point of view. On the other hand this thesis as also a scientific product. In this chapter the methodological approach is described in further detail.

The methodology used in this thesis can be placed within a constructivist tradition of conducting research. Because of the personal approach of this research, social constructivism is chosen. What this implies and how this research can be placed within that constructivist tradition will be explained in section 2.1. In section 2.2 the strategies of inquiry will be explained into more detail. This part entails the use of literature, data gathering and processing.

2.1 Social ConstructivismWithin science different views on how research is conducted exist. One of them is the social constructivist view. This view, like others, entails a set of basic assumptions about how researchers learn and what they learn during their inquiry. Social constructivism (or simply constructivism) is based on understanding, interpretation, multiple meanings given to one subject and theory generation. The main assumption is that facts (or realities) are socially constructed; individuals try to give meaning to their environment or world they live in (Creswell 2003). Or as Yanov (1993; Beunen 2010) adds, people actively construct meaning of policy documents and of decisions of other people. The way a person gives meaning is coloured by previous experiences, his or her background and is thus subjective. This view can be very useful for studying the complexity of different views, and give understanding to these views without compressing them to one comprehensive ‘truth’ (Creswell 2003).

How is dealt with spatial policy-making in Galicia and how governments interact with citizens (or set up participatory processes) can be understood in different ways. This depends on whom you are speaking with and what is his or her position within the overall process. These differences cannot be caught in “one single” comprehensive picture, but studying them next to each other gives more insight in how all these people deal with the environment they live in. Therefore I choose to study Galicia’s spatial policy-making processes, and moreover the interaction between different stakeholders in a rural environment, from a social constructivist point of view.

14

2.2 Strategies of inquiryWithin a social constructivist view different strategies of inquiry are possible. The strategies used in this thesis are based on an approach in which data is gathered first without a guiding theoretical framework. Experiences in the field and personal interests have been guiding for further data gathering and development of this research. This strategy is called the ethnographic approach (ten Have 2009). Another related strategy is grounded theory. Both strategies are explained in further detail in the next section. For data gathering interviews are used. How these interviews are carried out is discussed in the second section. In the third section is explained how was dealt with these strategies of inquiry in the field; and how coincidence, and being open-minded for new understandings, played an important role.

2.2.1 Grounded theory and ethnographic approachGrounded theory and the ethnographic approach are two methods of inquiry that enable data gathering without a preset theoretical framework. Literature is not used to frame the problem, in the introduction to the (case) study or as a separate section, but to explain the findings of the study at the end. Literature becomes a basis for comparing and contrasting the findings, but also to give a broader interpretation to the results. This approach is mostly used in grounded theory, where theory is derived from data collection, categorising this data, and extracting general ‘theories’ from these categories. This is not a one way process, but needs to be done in several rounds. In this way theories are tested in practice, by more specific data collection. This method is called theoretical sampling (Glaser & Strauss 1967, Cresswell 2003). Unfortunately the time span of this thesis was not long enough for this process. Some data is verified and checked in the field, but reflection and processing the data before a new round of data gathering was impossible during my stay in Galicia. Therefore another strategy of inquiry is used for data gathering in the field: the ethnographic approach.

Ethnographic research is characterised by an improvised method/way of working. Anthropologists mainly use this method to describe the way of life of people (e.g. indigenous tribes), from the inside, by joining them in daily activities. Observing by participation, or participatory observation, is one of the main methods for data gathering within ethnographic research. However the use of participatory observation is not preserved for anthropologists, it could also be useful for studying other groups of people, like in this case local participants and policy-makers. The definition of McCall and Simmons (1969, in ten Have 2009) for participatory observation is revealing for the improvised working method and ethnographic approach in general:

“…it refers to a characteristic blend or combination of methods and techniques that is employed in studying certain types of subject matter: primitive societies, deviant subcultures, complex organizations .., social movements, communities, and informal groups .. This characteristic blend of techniques .. involves some amount of genuinely social interaction

15

in the field with the subjects of the study, some direct observation of relevant events, some formal and a great deal of informal interviewing, some systematic counting, some collection of documents and artifacts, and open-endedness in the direction the study takes.”

The application of the ethnographic approach is not definite: it is a mix of looking at, participating and talking (interviewing). While data gathering itself does not have to be structured, it is very important to be aware of the methods used for processing. When researching from the inside, it is easy to become personally involved in the research object. Personal opinion, interpretation and observation can become blurred. This is why it is important to make continually field notes, and to make a distinction between your and other persons interpretations (ten Have 2009). In section 3.2.3 methods used for interviewing and observing are discussed in further detail.

2.2.2 Case study selectionBesides how, it is also important to know what you are studying, and to make a selection in possible subjects and cases. In his book “Making social science matter” Flyvbjerg (2001) mentioned the importance of case studies in applied social sciences. Flyvbjerg explains case studies as examples, which can be powerful in building and proving new knowledge. There are different types of case studies, existing of collections of cases composed in different ways. For example cases that are similar and easy to compare, or a large set of cases that show a maximum variety of differences, or two or three cases that entail the extremes within one area.

It is hard to fit the uxfor-policy into one of these categories, especially because the choice for this case (the uxfor-policy) and areas where the policy was implemented (uxfors) was not made on forehand. The selection of cases grew more or less organically. But, with Flyvbjerg notions about case study selection in the back of my head it was easier to steer and adjust the proposed cases. The uxfor-policy is one of the few examples in which a spatial policy is implemented together with local citizens, in a participatory way. It is also a policy in which different key problems in rural Galicia are tackled. And by studying the implementation process closely other traditions in policy-making in Galicy become apparent. Therefore I believe the uxfor-policy is a good example for ‘how things work’ in Galicia (see previous chapter). Within the uxfor-policy three areas, where the uxfor-policy was implemented, have been examined closer. These areas can be seen as embedded cases. The three areas (uxfors) have very different backgrounds, but are situated in the same province and deal with the same stakeholders (or policy-makers). Their starting positions show a maximum variety.

In Galicia many things were new for me, and sometimes I interpreted things differently according to my Dutch cultural background. Throughout the thesis these reflections/interpretations/mental notes are presented in textboxes.

16

However, since the same implementation process is applied, they are still comparable. The differences between the areas also give more dept and a larger context to each of the single case study areas. How the uxfor-policy, as a case study, crossed my path, and why this example is powerful, will be explained in further detail in the next chapters, starting with the notion of serendipity (2.2.4).

2.2.3 Interview and observation styles The main method used in order to gather data was interviewing. Different styles of interviewing are possible. In order to understand as much as possible of the area, policies and context of the case study the interviews were very open, in-dept and conversation-like. Before every interview a list with basic questions and topics was prepared. To most interviewees the same questions were asked, in order to untangle multiple viewpoints of one process or concept (e.g. the coming into being of partnerships), from which in a later phase narratives could be developed. However, depending on the position of the interviewee within the planning process (e.g. local participant or policy-maker) different focuses were chosen. In chapter 2 ‘positioning the researcher’ the initial questions and their background are discussed.

Most interviews were combined with a field visit. In total I visited three areas were uxfors (partnerships for collective forest management) were founded. These visits each took 1 day or more. During all visits I stayed with the contact person of the partnerships. In this way I was not only introduced into the project, but also into the personal life of the interviewee, his or her network of friends (and participants in the partnership) and rural life in general. The advantage of this approach is that I was able to collect more data than ‘just’ the story of the interviewee, but could also observe the personal environment and setting of the project. During all encounters my role as a researcher was known, I participated in conversations but tried to limit my influence (e.g. by not giving my opinion) as much as possible. The consequence of this method is that observations had to be reported carefully. Mostly I was not able to take a laptop. Therefore I made handwritten notes, during the visit or directly afterwards. In these notes I separated the story the interviewee told me (including his or her opinion), my own observations and my own opinion as much as possible; according to the ethnographic approach (Cresswell 2003, ten Have 2009).

During all interviews, observations and data processing I, as a researcher, was not an anonymous or neutral factor. My reactions influenced the answers of the interviewees or the ambience during observations. Sometimes I used this influence to get more information. For example by asking a farmer about his cows and telling something trivial about the Netherlands for a smoother ambiance. Another complication was mastering the Spanish language. Not always was I able to understand the interviewee. Therefore I recorded most interviews on tape, and typed the conversation using SoundScriber (a program used to

17

rewind and repeat tapes automatically) and my personal notes. Sometimes the quality of these tapes was insufficient, e.g. because of noisy cafes1. Therefore I also always took notes, sufficient to reconstruct the interview without tape. Another advantage of making notes was that I was more aware of directions the conversation took and which questions were answered and which not.

The results of the field research cannot be explained from one point of view, nor summarised to general understandings. Different actors construct different realities, according to their background, position, etc. The results are ‘processed’ into different narratives, which tell together the main stories of (rural) Galicia, but also the complexity and contradictions of real life problems and solutions. (Flyvbjerg 2001).

2.2.4 SerendepityThe above described way of conducting research often led to unexpected results. For a great part I was dependent on the people I met, their willingness to cooperate and the contact they provided for further data gathering. One could say the development of this research is based on coincidence. But I was also able to make my own choices. When I was interested in a certain case I asked around for people that knew more about it and that way I was introduced by others to experts, policy-makers and local participants. In this way I could turn coincidence to my hand. Also my personal background (as discussed in the previous chapter) made that I was aware of the choices I made and directions I took.

Gaston Remmers (2004) uses the concept of serendipity to explain the innovation on a Spanish dairy farm and cheese producer. Serendipity could be explained in a few ways, but lucky coincidence (or a faculty of making lucky choices by coincidence) is the most common explanation. However Remmers prefers to consider the concept of serendipity as a faculty that provides control and trust in uncontrolled, uncertain situations. To quote Remmers (2004):

“[Serendipity] is a faculty that some football experts call the capacity to ‘force fate: a good team, in a tense and apparently equal match, seems able to force a decisive goal at the very last moment. Luck, then, is the outcome of the specific coherence of the team’s resources. With this coherence, luck is no longer a matter of providence, as if an external force is mediating, but a possibility that opens up as a consequence of internal logic. Perceiving this possibility, recognising it and seizing it is serendipity.”

(Remmers, 2004, p271)

In this way luck could be forced, and coincidence or an unexpected development or encounter could be turned into something fruitful. This concept is very useful in innovation 1 In spain people rather meet at coffee bars or cafes than at home or even in their offices. A large part of the people I spoke therefore in a bar.

18

and novelty production, when it is not always possible to know what you are looking for, or if it must be something never thought of. However I also believe this concept could be helpful in ethnographic research and grounded theory, though with a few marginal notes. Personal background and experiences make it possible to pick useful information, meet the right people and therefore a consequence of internal logic. On the other hand there exists the danger to be carried away with successes and become narrow minded. Science is not preliminary about winning or gaining goals. Therefore it could be important to distance one selves from the subject sometimes, keep in mind what the subject was, change it when needed and mostly remain reflective.

As I wrote earlier, I am balancing between the multiple realities of Galicia. Now, several weeks later I’m still balancing. Off course everything is different than the assumptions and hypotheses I had in the Netherlands. The rural situation here is complex and has many faces. For the moment I am trying to untangle the different storylines I encounter here. Hopefully one or two are nice enough to work out and to connect to a more theoretical storyline. It is a delicate job, which can only be completed in Spanish (I never realised that almost closed scientific communities existed because of language barriers) and with as less generalisation as possible, as ‘everything is different is Galicia’. It also implies that I have to let go of my Dutch reality and leave behind the loose ends I developed back home.

Personal blog, posted on ruralsociologywageningen.wordpress.com (june 11, 2009)

19

3 A short introduction to Spain and Galicia

For a newcomer in Spanish history, it could be hard to grasp what is going on in Galicia, ‘how things work’, with what issues are dealt and why. This chapter is a short introduction in the background of current issues in Galicia. It gives an overview in recent history (mainly 20th and 21st century), political movements and issues related to land use planning and rural development.

3.1 Galicia – country of the CeltsGalicia is an autonomous region1 in the upper North West corner of Spain (see figures 4.1 and 4.2), just above Portugal. Hidden behind the Cantabrian Mountains, Galicia was for a long time isolated from other parts of Spain. One of the first inhabitants that could be distinguished are the Celts. They arrived in Galicia between the 7th and 5th century B.C. and established the first settlements. Nowadays the castros, built by the Celts still remain. Remarkably Galicia shows many similarities with other regions or countries inhabited by Celts. Like Ireland, Scotland and Brittany (in France), Galicia has a wet and rainy climate, a rough coastline and the traditional music is characterised by bagpipes (gaitas) and Celtic flutes. Although little is known about the original Celtic culture, remains are still present in contemporary Galicia (Carreiro 2001). Besides in popular culture, these remains are also visible in property arrangements (see the meaning of property).

Another important group of inhabitants were the Romans, who arrived in Galicia in 136 B.C. Galicia can be regarded as the most western part of the Roman empire. For the Romans it was of strategic importance to have a key settlement in this part, close to the sea and distanced from Rome. Industries like mining, forestry and fishing were established and exploited on a large scale from this time on. From roman times many artefacts remain, like the city wall of Lugo and many bridges, villas and baths. Maybe the most important thing the Romans left is the name they gave to the region: Gallaecia or Galicia. Towards the original population, the Celts, the Romans behaved rather mild. In contrast with previous conquests the Romans allowed the Celts to express their culture and governance system. The today still exiting concellos (municipalities) are a remainder of Celtic times. (Carreiro 2001)

1 Spain is divided in 17 autonomous regions, or Comunidades Autónomas. These regions are established in the constitution formed in 1978, after the Franco regime. All autonomous regions have their own parliament and government, and have large legal and administrative powers. For Galicia this government is the Xunta.

20

After the decline of the Roman empire numerous people invaded and inhabited Galicia, among whom the Suevi, the Visigoths and the Vikings. During this stage in history Galicia was independent most of the time (kingdoms were established and declined). Galicia gained some importance when the Reconquista started from Northern Spain, the reconquest of Spain after the Moors (Moros) conquered and reigned most of the Iberian peninsula for centuries. Galicia and other parts of northern Spain, hidden behind the Cantabrian Mountains, were a bridge too far for the Moors and were therefore never conquered by them. Santiago de Compostela became the cultural and religious centre in these days, since the remains of Santiago (the saint who drove the Moors away) were supposed to be found here. However, after the Reconquista Galicia did not remain independent. Before the local population already showed resistance to extra-local powers. During the period after the Reconquista several rebellions were put down. From this moment on history repeated a number of times, periods of occupancy by more central powers (e.g. under Reyes Catolicos, who united Spain first), resistance and independence alternated, though occupancy prevailed. In this way Galicia did not develop an independent economy like other cultural distinctive regions, which had been mostly independent. Before the civil war and Franco regime Galicia did not have the chance to develop its own political and administrative institutions (Bauer 2005). Governance from extra-local powers did not automatically lead to a high level of interference. Other Iberians regarded Galicia mainly as brute and ill-developed. Or as a Castilian writer

Figure 4.1 Topography of Galicia > Figure 4.2 Galicia within Europe

21

Francisco de Quevedo wrote in 1609: Galicia is the land that “the Spaniards hold in contempt as rude, poor, barbarous and remote, little favoured by nature, ugly with wilds and harsh…” (quoted in Bauer 1983). Until the civil war and Franco regime most villages developed some kind of self-governance (Bauer 2005).

The resistance to extra local powers led to a high level of emigration, present until now. Many Gallegos left their region to “the new world”: in Argentina Spaniards are generally called Gallegos. During the Franco regime there was a new wave of emigration, mainly to other European countries like France, Switzerland and Great Britain (Bauer 2005, Adolf 2007).

3.2 Spain – civil war and Franco’s regimeThe 20th century in Spain is dominated by the civil war and the regime of Franco afterwards. This period still has a large impact on Galicia and Spain nowadays. In 1931 Spain was denounced as a republic, after king Alfonso VIII was forced to resign. In June 1936 Galicia was declared as an autonomous region. However this status was never brought into action. After 1931 Spain stayed politically instable; leftist and rightist governments changed quickly during this republican period. In 1936 the civil war broke out, after another uprising. Anarchist, communist and republican parties on the one hand and nationalist and monarchist parties on the other hand fought for governing power. For a long time both sides were equally strong. When Italy and Germany decided to help the nationalist and monarchist parties, led by General Franco, their strength grew. This interference determined the ending of the civil war. In 1939 the war ended and Franco took power over Spain.

In many parts of Spain losses were high. The bombing of Guernica (Bask Country) is probably the most revealing. Galicia, land of fishermen and navy, choose side of Franco in an early stage. The nationalists conquered Galicia in one day. This entailed that Galicia did not suffer during the civil war like Bask Country or Catalonia. Fights were never as violent as in other parts of Spain (Bauer 2005).

In March 1939 the army of Franco took over Madrid. Four days later the civil war was determined, Franco had won and became dictator of Spain until his dead in 1975. Franco did not want to become ‘president’ of Spain; he named himself caudillo (leader) and so confirmed his position as a dictator. Despite the help of the fascist regimes of Italy and Germany and ideological correspondence, Franco decided not to take part in the Second World War. Spain remained independent and distanced from what was going on Europe. During the first twenty years of Franco’s regime Spain was a closed country for the rest of the world. The economy suffered during the civil war, afterwards Franco aimed to rebuilt economic strength by being self-sufficient. In Galicia large artificial lakes were constructed as water reservoirs for the rest of Spain and for power production. Also most commonly

22

Baroña, celtic castro

Folklore: Gaita and traditional costume

Agricultural landscape Orense Hórreo, traditional (grain) shed

Monument for civil war victims, A Coruña

23

owned property (montes) was expropriated for reforestation (Bauer 2005). In other parts of Spain main investments were made in infrastructure, since many of the roads and bridges were damaged during the civil war. The intended self-sufficient food production, however, became a large problem, if not disaster. In 1959 Spain was pressured to open its doors to a more liberal economy and received development aid from the U.S. and IMF. Bask Country and Catalonia industrialized rapidly from this moment on. Tourism became a main source of income during this period. Galicia’s economy remained of an agricultural, resource based nature, and stayed behind compared to other parts of Spain or Europe. During the autarkic period no large investments for economical development were made here and later investments took place in already economical flourishing regions.

Another main characteristic of Franco’s regime was the repression of all regional (cultural) expressions. Even though Franco was born in Galicia and spoke Gallego (Galician language), this language, like other regional languages, was forbidden. The same applied for local traditions, music and festivals.

In 1975 Franco died at the age of 82. Before his death Franco already re-established the position of Spanish monarchy. He appointed Prince Juan Carlos I (the grandson of the former King Alfonso XIII) as his successor. Soon afterwards Juan Carlos guided Spain into a transition towards democracy. In 1978 the constitution was formed and in 1982 the first elections were hold, won by the socialist party (PSOE) of Suarez. That the new situation was still very fragile became clear in 1981, when Antiono Tejero, together with members of the Guardía Civil (Spanish civil police) attempted a coup d’état (Adolf 2007).

3.3 After Franco – transition towards democracyThe transition towards democracy led to many developments in the Spanish governmental system. One of the most significant is that the different regions were no longer governed from a national base, but were granted autonomy and the possibility to have their own regional government. The level of autonomy differs per region and historic/nationalistic background. E.g. Bask Country and Catalonia have a very strong national identity, besides the ability to choose their own parliament and president; they also have their own police division and seats in the national parliament. In Galicia the level of autonomy is somewhat lower. Its government (Xunta de Galicia) is largely independent, but Galicia cannot form its own police power, nor does is have its own representatives in the national government (Adolf 2007).

After the transition towards democracy two main political parties were established: the conservatist Partido Popular (PP) and the socialist Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE). For the national government both parties governed alternately, sometimes with support from regional fractions (like the Bask Nationalist Party or Republican Leftist Party of Catalonia)

24

for majority in votes. In most regions also regionalist parties were erected. In Galicia this was the Bloque Nationalista Galego (BNG), a coalition of Galician nationalist and leftist parties. The BNG is the biggest political party in Galicia, after the PP and PSdeG (Partido Socialista de Galegos, a regional sister party of the PSOE) (Keating 2001).

For long time the PP was the most popular party in Galicia, where also after the Civil War and Franco’s regime conservatism was deeply rooted. From 1990 to 2005 the PP governed Galicia, under the leadership of Manuel Fraga, former minister of tourism during the Franco regime. In 2002 the popularity of the PP started to diminish. The main cause was the way authorities on regional and national level dealt with the sinking of the Prestige. The Prestige is a giant oil tanker that sank in front of Galicia’s coast. Because of indecision and lack of expertise used, oil could spread out along almost the entire coast line of Galicia and other parts of northern Spain. For Galicia this meant an ecological and economical disaster. The ecosystem of the rías (ford like estuaries) is very fragile and many fishermen lost their income. An action group was raised (Nunca Maís) and large demonstrations were held. The main accuse was at the address of Fraga, according to Nunca Maís his unwillingness to act led to a disaster. In the national and regional politics support for PP also minimized. In 2005 the PP was not re-elected in Galicia, and the PSdeG and BNG formed a coalition together. After the elections of 2009 the PP was re-elected (Adolf 2007).

3.4 Becoming part of the EU – impact of regulations and subsidiesThe transition towards democracy led to another development that had a major impact on Spain. In 1986 Spain became a part of the European Union. Compared to other EU-countries Spain had a serious economical backlog. While in other EU countries modernisation of agriculture (scale enlargement) started in the 1950s and was pushed forward with EU funds, in Spain this process only started in the 1970s. Also infrastructure and industries did not undergo the process of modernisation. Becoming part the EU brought progress in many ways. After opening the doors to Europe the tourism sector flourished, especially along the Mediterranean coast. EU membership also enhanced the process of democratisation (Adolf 2007). Subsidy programs preconditioned mostly clarity in governance and in a later phase the involvement of citizens and the possibility for bottom-up processes (Keating 2001).

In Galicia the impact of EU membership still is largely visible. Many new roads are funded with EU money, like many other projects. Some governmental agencies are specialised in requests for subsidies. However Galicia did not become the land of milk and honey after 1986. According to some interviewees EU membership did not only bring prosperity, but also enlarged the gap between Spanish farmers and other EU farmers. While other parts of the EU already underwent the process of modernisation, many farmers in Spain still farmed in traditional ways. Scale enlargement brought many Europeans economic prosperity, but unfortunately also resulted in environmental problems and abundance of agricultural

25

products. In the 1980s EU agricultural policy changed from subsidizing agricultural production to stimulation other forms of agriculture and land use (like agroforestry and agritourism) and reducing production of e.g. milk (by establishing milk quota). This development interfered with the period Spain became an EU member. Many Gallegos and Spaniards in general feel that they were stopped in their process of agricultural modernisation, because of the changing paradigm and new regulations. E.g. milk quota were distributed after the amount of production in the years before introduction of this new regulation. While in the Netherlands this led to new forms of economic activity, Galicia’s backlog in dairy production was affirmed. Galicia has the biggest share in the dairy sector of Spain, but large farms were absent in the 1980s. Many farmers did not have the chance to invest in new equipment and increase their production before the quota were introduced. If farmers wanted to enlarge afterwards they did not only had to invest in new machinery, livestock and stables, but also in expensive milk quota. Nowadays small farms still predominate in Galicia, while big competing farms are limited (Domínguez et.al. 2006, Domíguez García 2007).

The stimulation of agroforestry led to a different development in Galicia. Due to Galicia’s wet climate and moderate temperatures this region has a high potential for afforestation. During Franco’s regime already a high number of common properties were expropriated for afforestation projects. Franco’s economic planners and forestry engineers tended to regard the traditional peasant system of common used montes as destructive, which legitimized from their point of view the far-reaching effects for peasant communities and income. The wood harvested here was meant to provide the whole of Spain with wood and it did not leave much for the Galician community. The initial idea was to plant a diverse variety of indigenous trees, like oak and chestnut. However when the magnitude of the Franco’s policy became clear to villagers, it also turned out that mainly fast growing pine trees (pinos) were planted. Especially for war veterans who fought on the nationalist side during the civil war this was a bitter pill to swallow (Bauer 2005).

Figure 4.3 surface of public and private owned production forest in Galicia, from 1940 to 1999 (Seijo 2005)

Figure 4.4 Forested hectares since 1945 in Spain and Galicia (Seijo 2005)

26

During the late 1980s and early 1990s it became possible for private owners to plant their parcels with production forests. Most of these parcels were uncultivated before, but with EU subsidies for diversification of agricultural production, it became profitable to plant them. Afforestation succeeded rapidly from this moment on. Land use allocation policy for production forests was absent at this moment, therefore it became possible to plant trees (mainly cheap and fastgrowing eucalyptus) everywhere and for everyone. Haphazardly many small plots were forested. In northern Spain part-time farming was stimulated by this development. Not every parcel needed to be cultivated on a frequent base anymore. Unfortunately afforestation is also associated with total abandonment of farming and in a later phase also with ill-management and land abandonment (Domínguez et.al. 2006, Domíguez García 2007). Subsidies for plantation were largely available, but not for the maintenance of production forests. Therefore many owners did not put effort in this, or did not have the resources to do so. Ageing of owners and depopulation increased the problem. Nowadays many owners are not aware anymore that they own a forested parcel. Their children sometimes inherited these parcels, but moved to the city a long time ago. Because of a non-functioning castatro (land registry) it is hard to find out which parcels belong to whom and were the parcels are exactly located. These problems are closely related with land abandonment in general, which will be explicated in the next section.

27

4 The meaning of property – land abandonment

In the previous chapter the issue of land abandonment is briefly mentioned. When investigation land use and the relations between government and local people in rural Galicia it is a topic that cannot be missed. In this chapter the causes and effects of land abandonment, and how this issue is interwoven with nearly all developments in rural Galicia, (on a social, spatial and historical scale) will be further discussed.

Nowadays nearly 30% of the rural land is abandoned (Onega 2008). When driving through the landscape you can see parcels overgrown by shrubs or small bushes, and stony walls in the middle of uncultivated land. The presence of land abandonment is evident throughout the whole Galician landscape, even in the more urban areas.

There are several reasons for the origins of the current situation. The most important are the unwillingness to sell the land, the lack of competition force of farmers, the high number of owners and parcels scattered through the whole area. These factors are strengthened by unsuitable policies from higher governmental institutions and uncertainties due to the many gaps in existing (land use) policies (Van Dijk 2003, Onega 2008, Domínguez García 2007).

The unwillingness to sell the land can be explained from Galicia’s history. For a long time Galicia has been governed by external forces. Owning private land only became possible

The issue of land abandonment When the issue of land abandonment was introduced to me for the first time, I found it hard to grasp the full impact. For the expert I spoke with land abandonment was obviously one of the most terrible things happening to Galicia at the moment. For me it was not that obvious. In the Netherlands we would regard non-used land as nature reserve; moreover it would rapidly become a nature reserve (like the Oostvaarderplassen). Instead of a problem, most people would consider this change a gift or surprise. When I asked for explanation, it seemed hard to name one; Galicians love their land of course, however there were also more serious effects. Forest fires is one of them, uncompetitive agriculture another. However I could not suppress the thought that if all these Galicians love their land so much, then why is it so hard to do anything about it. Nonetheless when I spoke more experts about this subject it became clear to me that the problem is deep-rooted and complex.

28

from the 1900’s onwards, when parts of common owned land and land of large land owners was distributed among/bought by the local people. The take-over was largely financed by emigrated family members, who did have capital to do so (Bauer 2005). Owning land can be seen as a symbol for independency, where people long fought for. Furthermore owners hold on to their land for practical reasons, to have a backup for economic bad times. After all, most ancestors used the land for food production; a primary necessity of life. Since the costs for owning land are low (or actually not charged because of high administration costs and an inaccurate land registry), just own land is an attractive option.

Another reason for abandonment lies in recent history. In 1981 a national law was brought into action to reinforce the position of tenants. This law implied that tenants would have the right to buy the land after five years of renting. In the south of Spain, where most private property is owned by a few owners, this law was an effective instrument. The number of large landowners was reduced and more farmers got the opportunity to own land. In Galicia however, the effect was the opposite. Galicia already had a high number of small owners. In order to avoid the risk to loose their land most owners preferred abandonment over renting out the land. While the law was only effective on national level for a few years, the effects are still noticeable nowadays. Owners are still afraid of loosing the rights over their property, or they do not trust to recover the parcel in good conditions, or simply have trouble finding tenants Onega 2008).

The resilience to sell or rent land is combined with a high number of owners and small scattered parcels. This is the consequence of the traditional inheritance system in Galicia, in which all heirs receive an even share. When somebody dies, the land he or she owned is divided among all the children. After a few generations this results in many scattered small parcels. Additionally not only the plots are scattered, also the dwellings and small hamlets (nucleos or aldeas) are scattered throughout the whole of rural Galicia. Nowadays Galicia counts 1.6 million owners (in a population of 3 million persons). These owners have on average 7.7 parcels, with a medium size of 0.23 hectare (Onega 2008). Efficient use of plots is almost impossible. The parcels are too small for mechanic maintenance, or do not have direct access to roads. In addition most owners do not live in the same municipality anymore as they own land, nor are they active users (like farmers are). Of the 1.6 million owners, only 100.000 are direct users (Onega 2008).

The current situation is paradoxical, while commercial farms remain very small and are non-competitive (the average size is 10 hectares, 25 parcels), land abandonment is a widespread problem. Obviously, selling the land not a popular option, so not a lot of land is supplied on the land market. Besides land prices are high in Galicia. One could say land is overestimated. Nobody wants to sell its land for a lower price and can afford to wait or not to sell. In addition many people hope for an increase in value, because of urban expansion or forestation

29

(change in land use). Due the non-existence of effective town and country planning, all rural areas can be re-allocated as urban or forestry areas at any time. This reinforces the hope of most owners for a value increase of their land in the near future (Lopez 1996, 2000). It also increases the ground price (land is ‘overestimated’) and leads to a high rate of speculation.

The other part of the problem lies at the demand side of the land market. Many farmers do not have the means to invest. When Spain became part of the EU, it had a serious backlog in agricultural production compared to other countries. Most farmers invested in new machinery, milk quota and livestock first. Enlarging the farms is simply not an option for most farmers, since there is no capital left. Nowadays Galician farmers still have trouble to compete with other regions (Domínguez García 2007).

Figure 5.1 Parcel map of a rural municipality. Black parcels: owner living in the same munici-pality. Grey parcels: owner living in other municipality. The white dots indicate dwellings and nucleos (Onega 2008).

30

Renting could be a solution, but is rarely performed. Owners are afraid of loosing their property rights, after renting out the land. Instead afforestation (stimulated with EU subsidies and low in maintenance) or eventually abandonment or are seen as attractive alternatives. The result is an immobile land market (Domínguez García 2007, Onega 2008).

To tackle the above mentioned problems different (new) policies have been established. One way to deal with the immobile land market and land fragmentation is land consolidation. For a long time this was the only public measure. Nevertheless this measure has not always been effective. The administration coming along with land consolidation is enormous, especially considering the ill-functioning cadastre and governmental tête-à-têtes. It happens that areas for land consolidation are proposed by local politicians or administrators, are granted by befriended regional administrators (e.g. since they are of the same party). In this way areas considered for land consolidation are not always the ones that are most in need for this act, or were the policy would be most effective (personal reference, Onega 2009). Another reason is the big gap between owners and farmers the big gap between owners and farmers and the very different kind of personal aims (regarding their lands) they have and the very low land mobility. This provoked that internal fragmentation was diminished; yet ownership and land use fragmentation were not. In this way, beneficial effects were harmed (Onega 2008). Recently new policies have been formed to deal with land fragmentation and abandonment. The creation of a land bank is one of them; the foundation of uxfors is another. Both land bank and uxfor have the same roots. They were formed in the same period of time, aim at reducing land abandonment, and concentrate on the land use level and gaining trust from local owners. Yet the difference lies in the focus of both policies. The land bank focuses on the redistribution of (agricultural) property, while the uxfor-policy focuses on collective management of afforested land. Together with the land bank a new public body was created: Bantegal (Banco de terras Galicia). Bantegal is the agency (empresa) concerned with the promotion and execution of land leasing out through the land bank. Galicia’s land bank is organised in a different way then similar projects in European Countries. Usually the land bank buys the property, holds it and sells it again to other interested parties. The land bank functions as a mediator between owner and buyer, and makes more complex deals possible (e.g. if somebody wants to sell the land, but there is no direct buyer available). Nevertheless, since selling land is a very unpopular option in Galicia and land prices are extremely high, a different construction is chosen. Land owners that put their land into the land bank, do not loose their property, they remain the legal owners. The land in the land bank is leased (or rented) out to other users. The land bank still functions as a mediator between owner and user, but not so much as a depot for land or capital. To promote leasing land through the land bank has different

31

instrument. They give guarantees to the legal owners; that they do not loose ownership, that the leasing contract is observed (payment and period) and that the condition of the land will be the same after the leasing period. On the other hand different penalties (like fines) have been created by the ministry of rural affairs, for parcels that are abandoned or ill-managed.

These penalties apply for all private owners, and are not only meant to stimulate the land bank. Also forest management units (uxfors) could profit from them, since collective management is another alternative for land abandonment or ill-managed forests. This policy (and moreover how policy-makers and local owners deal with them) will be discussed into more detail in the next chapters.

32

33

5 The uxfor-policy

Leaving the general notions of the previous two chapters behind, this chapter will be about participatory practices in rural Galicia. To illustrate these practices the uxfor-policy is used as a case study. An uxfor1 (unidad de xestíon forestal, in Gallego) is a forest management unit, an area in which private parcels of production forests are managed collectively. This policy is particularly interesting because it is the first policy-making process in which citizens (owners) are actively involved and that is set up following a bottom-up philosophy. This case study also reflects on most of the current issues present in rural Galicia.

This chapter can be read as several interrelating storylines. First in section 5.1 a general introduction will be given to the uxfor-policy. In section 5.2 the government of Galicia and its policy-makers play a central role. Here will be discussed what the policy-makers had in mind when they developed the uxfor-policy and how they dealt with it. A few months before I arrived in Galicia the government changed. The new conservativist government choose to pause all existing policies (under which the uxfor-policy) until further examination. When I conducted the research, the implementation of the policy was at a deadlock. The implications of this deadlock are discussed in section 5.3. In chapter 6 the implementation of the uxfor-policy and the current state of affairs will be discussed further.

All information in this chapter is based on in dept interviews I held with policy-makers, contact persons of uxfors, owners in uxfor-areas and some experts. Where additional information is used from policy documents or the internet this will be indicated. The interview questions were based on the scope mentioned in the first chapter (positioning the researcher).

5.1 Uxfor, background and general informationThe uxfor-policy is established officially in April 2007, as a part of the prevention of and defence against forest fires law (Lei 3/2007). This law was called into being after a series of serious forest fires in 2006. In the summer of 2006 almost 95.000 hectares burned In Galicia (Molano Martín et.al. 2007). At that time most municipalities did not have up-to-date defence (evacuation) and prevention plans. Also many production forests were ill-managed. Because most parcels were not cleaned regularly (that say small bushes and shrubs removed) a lot of inflammable biomass can pile up underneath the trees. Although mostly the direct

1 With uxfor a group of owners is meant, who manage their property collectively in a spe-cific area. Uxfor- policy refers to the overall policy.

34

causes of forest fires remain unknown (Seijo 2005), ill-maintained forests are an important factor in the fast spreading of fires and the large areas burned in Galicia.

The ill-maintenance of production forest is not a problem that comes alone. It is closely related to land abandonment, one of the biggest threats (causing a non-competitive agricultural sector and forest fires) to the Galician countryside nowadays. Galicia has many landowners; in a population of 3 million people, half owns a piece of land. A large part of these owners are not capable or willing to maintain the land. Some of them are too old, others inherited the land but moved to the cities and there are even people unaware of being an owner. The costs of owning land are low and the personal value of owning land is high. Not always did it go without saying to own land. For different reasons owners are unwilling to sell their land (Dominguez Garcia 2006). In general this also goes for the forested parcels. However other dynamics also resulted in the current situation. In the 1980’s Spain became a member of the European Union. At that time the EU policy was to downsize agricultural production and promote other forms of land use, or ways of agricultural production. E.g. large subsidies were given for forestation. In Galicia many land owners and farmers choose

Turning point From the issue land abandonment I immediately knew that it was going to play an important role in my research, it could not be left out when discussion spatial planning or rural development. The topic I was struggling with was participation of locals in policy-making. Though it never has been my intention to make a comparison between the two countries, I expected participation would be less problematic in Galicia than in e.g. The Netherlands. After a few conversations with experts I knew that this was not exactly the case. Policy-making in Galicia was mainly a governmental tête-à-tête. Most people did not really understand why I was so interested in participation, nor what policy-research entailed, and moreover they did not understand why I came to Galicia with these ‘vague’ ideas in the first place. Luckily this skepticism did not affect their willingness to help me unraveling what was going on in Galicia and find out how to fit in the topics I wanted to research. One of the most useful comments was: “… but if you are really interested in bottom-up projects, why don’t you look at forest management units: the uxfors”. First I was not so sure about this change, forest management is not really my specialty, it sounded a bit too narrow, and I was afraid of loosing a connection with rural development. However, since time was running out (I already spent 2.5 months in Galicia) not many options were left, I choose to take the chance and get familiar with the uxfor-policy. It turned out to be a lucky guess. After asking around at the university I was introduced to policy-makers that were implementing the policy, and they introduced me to others and so on and so on…

35

to rent their land to large wood producing companies for forestation or to plant their land themselves with trees. These forestation projects were not guided by governments, and led to a rather uncontrolled development in changing land use. Everybody was able to plant trees everywhere. EU subsidies were given for the plantation of production forests, for maintenance costs the owners had to provide themselves. As the ill-maintenance of forest is closely related to the issue of land abandonment and the involvement of local owners. Therefore the Xunta (2005-2009) decided to tackle the problems by its roots. To make maintenance feasible for owners, a plan was made to manage small parcels collectively. In this way the size of the parcels does not have to be taken into account, bigger plots of trees can be planted and it gets easier to enforce forest fire defence measurements. The maintenance of production forest becomes more efficient in an economic way. Also forest fire safety measures become operable. Before, if your parcel was in a forest fire protection belt (a zone without trees, to stop forest fires), you would loose a large part of your income since it was not possible to plant trees here. This mainly resulted in reluctance to observe safety measures at all. Now this loss is divided among all shareholders of the uxfor, and monitored and compensated by the Xunta. Another goal is to expand the resources of income and make them more sustainable. E.g. many production forests are planted with Eucalyptus. The eucalyptus tree is a fast grower and is regarded economically interesting. However they allow a high level of undergrowth (small bushes) as well and there

Figure 6.1 Burned surface in Spain and Galicia, from 1968 to 2002 (Seijo 2005)

36

is not a big market for this type of wood. From an aesthetic point of view the indigenous eucalyptus tree does not add to the quality of the landscape or biodiversity. To make forestry more sustainable, diversification in production is very important. In newly planted uxfors different kinds of pines, chestnut trees, cherry trees and oaks are planted. But also secondary products like fruits and mushrooms can be part of the plantation plan.

The initial idea was to develop the uxfor-policy in a bottom-up way. A group of owners in a specific area can decide to start to manage their forests collectively. Together the owners can ask for support from Xunta, for example to make the statutes and the technical/production plan, or for subsidies for maintenance, infrastructure or plantation. To catalyse this process Seaga, the governmental agency implementing the uxfor-policy, founded a website where

Conditions for starting an uxfor:

• the forestated parcels must form an contiguous area of at least 15 hectares• the proposal to start this procedure is signed by the owners of at least 50 % of the

total area, that is to be managed together• it is possible start the foundation of an uxfor, when the reorganization of property

management also took into account prevention and protection against the forest fires in the district

(translated from www.uxfor.info)

Figure 6.2 Conditions for starting an uxfor (Conselleria do medio rural Galicia)

owners could fill in a declaration of interest. On this website land owners can also see if other nearby owners were interested in starting an uxfor as well, and in which state other uxfor’s were (Consellería do medio rural 2009) .

5.2 Policy-makersIn the previous section the background of the coming into being of the uxfor-policy is discussed. Besides reading information material (like leaflets and the website) I interviewed different policy-makers about their experiences. The policy-makers I spoke had, and still have, high expectations of this project. Idealistically they felt closely connected to this policy and the implementation of the project. My questions mainly focussed on the formation of uxfors, the role the policy-makers played within the project, and their expectations.

InitiativeDifferent meanings are given to the concept of taking initiative. All policy-makers were able to draw this ideal picture, when explaining what uxfors are. When I asked for a more detailed explanation it seemed harder to draw the picture. In theory owners are free to start

37

an uxfor and can ask for support from the Xunta. In practice a lot of effort is invested in catalysing the foundation of uxfors and stimulating owners to join them. Alvarez of Seaga explained this as following:

“uxfor is a new policy, it is unknown. So we do a lot of promotion, to inform the people, we go to visit them and give a presentation… Now sociologists work for us, and they try to involve as many people as possible to start an uxfor. If the owner shows interest he can let us know and is registered. If enough owners show interest we support them with the creation of an uxfor. Because it is a new policy, some examples were needed. Therefore we stimulated the foundation of 24 uxfors. If people would see that they were working well… it is easier to start a private initiative.”

Also Xabier Bruña, who worked for the province of Lugo on the implementation of the uxfor-policy, put great emphasis on bringing together local owners, on social cohesion:

Figure 6.3 State of foundation of uxfors in Galicia 2009 (www.uxfor.info), position of case studies

38

“Uxfor is not only about making progress in an economical way, it is also about bringing people together. Most neighbours did not work together in thirty years. There was an old lady that never thought her parcel would be cleaned, but two years after the initiative she had a clean parcel. She was very happy about that. This project is about reactivating social capital.”

Both policy-workers put a lot of emphasis on the role the owners played and how they were involved in the project. This was the first (rural) project organised in a bottom-up way in Galicia. Until then, involving people in spatial policy implementation did not occur. In this sense the implementation of the uxfor-policy was experimental, for both policy-makers and people (see section 5.3, and 6.4). The sociologists (García and de la Fuente), where Alvarez spoke about, said about this new approach:

“The core idea of the uxfor-policy is that we promote participation in regional development processes. It is a philosophy that exists in theory, in proffesional discourses and in European perspective, but not in practice here. Our philosophy is to promote social participation, especially in rural areas.”

For Alvaréz and Bruña it was hard to explain how they exactly did involve the people, and promoted participation. García and de la Fuente were more precise about this matter. They work for a private agency called Cidadania. This agency is specialised in participatory processes, though mainly in an urbanised environment. García and De la Fuente explained their work during the starting phase into detail.

“Our job is to mobilise the area. We go to communities, try to create trust between the people in an area. We also look at what is necessary to make a plan, and to start a participatory process and the implementation of the policy. … First it is very important that the administration (governmental agencies ed.) is concerned about the problem and willing to make the first step. Secondly we look for protagonists within the area. These are people that are willing to make effort, but also are some kind of authority. They can bring the process forward and involve other locals. We talk with them about what they want and how they would like to achieve that. Then we start organizing meetings, together with the Xunta, to inform all the vecinos and to convince them to join. This was not always an easy job, sometimes we had to come back several times. If there were enough participants we could go on to the next phase, and make the statutes and technical plan”

Gaining trust of the local owners was one of the difficulties to overcome. As explained in the previous chapter, owning land is something special for Galicians. Most people are afraid of loosing their property and unwilling to sell their land. All interviewees explained this as the most difficult step in the process. They had to explain carefully that people were not going to loose their land, just the rights of use were distributed in a different way. Bruña spoke

39

Figure 6.4 Buffer zones (forest protection belt) within uxfor-area

Figure 6.5 General forestation plan (draft for ixfe)

40

about the northern American model of property rights, in which owning and right of use were separated. The legal owner still owns the land, but the rights of use are divided among all owners. Every owner within the uxfor gets a proportional stake in the profits, costs and voting. In each uxfor-area several meetings were organised to explain everything, about the collective management and to convince owners. However, despite all arguments, personal contact and charisma seemed to play the most important role. This is why the sociologist tried to enthuse the policy-makers and local protagonists first.

Starting an uxforWhen the first step is taken and owners show enough interest for forming an uxfor, it is time to take the next steps. First the owners sign a contract, a declaration of cooperation in the uxfor. In principal the duration of participation is the lifespan of a tree or plantation, from the moment the trees are planted, until they are harvested. According to Alvarez this is not that long. Owners are always free to sell their land and in case the owner dies, the inheritors can reconsider to join the uxfor or not. In case an uxfor-area is confronted with urban expansion, only the owners in the specific area have to sell their land and profit, the others not.

The uxfors are designed a democratic way. All participants have a vote. How these votes are divided is not very clear yet. Some respondents say that every participant has one vote, others say that the votes are divided (in a less democratic way) after the size of the shares. A person with more land in the uxfor has then a larger vote than his neighbour with a small piece of land. Yet in practice most decisions are taken together, without directly voting. In the next chapter the social dynamics (and decision-making) within uxfors is discussed in more detail. Alvarez adds, from the policy-makers point of view:

“It is a cyclic process. If the owners do not agree with the ixfe, a new plan is made, until they do agree. The plans, the statutes are published publically; fifteen days before the decision is made. In this way everybody knows what is going on, and can new owners decide to become part of the uxfor.”

The technical planThe ixfe is a technical plan in which the production scheme, infrastructure and forest fire safety measures are determined. Establishing this plan is not entirely without controversies. It is for example possible that not all owners could be traced within the area of the uxfor. To leave a parcel unmaintained in the middle of a collective managed area could be quite problematic. This is why, according to Bruña and Alvarez, the ixfe (the production scheme) is obligatory for all parcels within the uxfor-area, also to the ones of the owners that decided not to join. On the other hand joining the uxfor is voluntary. What happens if the owner is unknown or does not want to cooperate is a case thought of, but not taken care of in a legal way. If the owner is unknown, the land is maintained by the others according to plan. The

41

benefit is shared. If the unknown owner comes back and reclaims the land, he can decide to join the uxfor or to maintain the land himself. In the latter case the owner has to pay for the costs, minus the profit so far to join the uxfor. If an owner does want to join, but has parcels in key location, it could become a serious complication in the process:

“We do not have experience with that so far. For now we try to keep the chances for conflict as small as possible. If it comes to a confrontation, it can be a new forest fire…” (Alvarez notes with a semi-serious smile)

Nonetheless from official documents appears that some aspects of the ixfe are obligatory, as they should be obligatory for all forested areas. This is because of the forest fire protection law. For example it is obligatory to make buffer zones around built-up areas (nucleos) or empty (unplanted) lanes within the forests to prevent fires from spreading quickly. There are more regulations that make uxfors less specific. The subsidies available for maintenance or plantation of forests are not exclusively for uxfors, but accessible for all private land owners with production forests. Only, applying for these subsidies collectively have precedence and less complicated.

For me the procedures (informing all owners, making a plan and collective agreement) sounded very logical. In the Netherlands for most spatial interventions procedures have to be followed, including the involvement of local participants and public hearings. In Galicia these procedures hardly exist. Some decisions are taken haphazardly; or plans are made, but not put into effect. Or as Alvarez says:

“People are not used to work with a plan here, it is new for them and they have to learn that. From now on developments must be organised, we need order. Besides a direct result (the reduction of forest fires and increase of income) uxfor salso have an indirect effect: The work for a better landscape and social movement is created.”

In addition Alvarez stated that most inhabitants looked at the Xunta as being their “mama”, ready to take care of everything. When they experience a problem, they wait for the Xunta to solve it. According to Alvarez this needs to change, the uxfor-policy is one way to do so. In the next chapter the perspective of these inhabitants will be examined more closely.

5.3 A deadlock in implementation of uxfor-policyAt the moment the future of the uxfors and the uxfor-policy is unsure. In January 2009 the conservatavist PP won the elections and resolved to rethink the policy and further implementation. Until a decision is made about how to continue (stop, continue in the same way or reshape the policy) the uxfors are at a deadlock. The policy is ‘paused’ as Enrique Alvarez, (employee of the Xunta, responsible for the implementation process) says. During all interviews this topic came up. For all stakeholders involved the current state meant great

42

uncertainty. However they responded in a different ways, some reacted resignedly, others fiercely and a few said it would be just a matter of time before the policy would be operational again. The current state of affairs also sharpened the positions of the stakeholders. Strengths and weaknesses of the policy were uncovered, that otherwise would have remained invisible. Nonetheless everybody I interviewed believed the uxfor-policy was the only way to tackle the problems experienced at the Galician countryside. As Bruña mentions:

“There is a large difference between this government and the one before. Now we have a conservative government, the one before was socialistic. The socialist government thinks that things should be arranged from below to above (bottom-up), in cooperation with the people. If one wins, we all win. This government prefers to implement things from above. It is another way. They do not want collective management. In conservative, or rightist politics it is always about one thing: I win and that is it. But with these problems, collective management is the only way.”

The policy-makers placed themselves in an passive role. To the question what to do now Alvarez and Bruña answered that they were waiting for the Xunta to take a decision. According to them they were not able to influence this decision and took more or less a neutral role when answering questions about the policy. The representatives of the uxfors could speak more freely (one of them is working on an action group). They were not as involved as the policy-makers were (who took the largest workload for their account). Moreover their

Change of government The time I spent in Galicia was coincided with the transitional period after the elections. The PP was settling and the PSOE and BNG counted their losses. I got to know Galicia as a highly politicalised country, ‘everything is politics’ as one of my colleagues said during a coffeebreak. All subjects I wanted to investigate or discuss were interwoven with this political transition. For me this made it particularly hard to grasp what was going on. In the beginning I was hardly aware of the impact elections could have. For example, in the Netherlands, politicians are changed when they are not rechoosen, policy-makers (or governmental employees) remain in their positions. In Galicia also the governmental executives are replaced, if a different party wins the elections. Most executives here feel ideologically very related to the policy they are developing or implementing. The replacement of executives was something everybody knew about but not a topic for open conversation, at least not with the persons involved. Sometimes I found it a pity to be in Galicia under these circumstances. I really would have liked to visit a reunion, or to observe an uxfor in operation. On the other hand I got to know Galicia from a different perspective. The current state showed the weaknesses and strengths of the policies more clearly I think.

statements did not have far-reaching effects for them; their jobs were not at stake. Alvarez for example saw his team shrink from 12 employees to only one, himself, charged with the evaluation of the policy so far.

About the why and how of the change in attitude towards the uxfor-policy, all respondents were clear, it was a matter of money. It is not remarkable that different political parties have different views on how to spent public money. The uxfor-policy was the hobbyhorse of the socialist-nationalist government, together with other rural, more participatory initiatives. During their governing time both parties put a lot of effort in making this policy a success. A flying start was needed. Nonetheless one can ask whether the previous government really thought about the possibility of losing it all after elections. The loss of the PSOE and BNG was a close call, and from the interviews it appeared that the policy-makers did not expect to be stopped during the implementation process. Now continuation of the policy without change seems to be a bridge too far, although everybody I interviewed still believes that is the best to do. Alternation of the initial policy is probably the most viable way to go (Bruña):

“I prefer to continue, like now. But to modify the uxfor-policy is a possibility to open the road. Modification means simplifying the handling of the creation of an uxfor. In this way creating an uxfor will be much easier. Now it takes a lot of time before an uxfor is realised. In addition there are problems with public funding, the stakes of the owners, benefits and taxes.”

Moreover the economic situation of Galicia, and the rest of the world changed a lot since the policy was developed. The issues affecting rural Galicia, like land abandonment and forest fires, still exist, but they are overshadowed now by an economic crisis. Employment and viability of industries gained priority. In addition public funds are much more limited. Every coin can only be spent once; it is not only the political climate that changed.

43

44

45

6 Three Uxfors - local practices

After exploring the uxfor-policy from a policy-makers point of view I visited three different uxfors. All of them are placed within the province of Lugo, where I lived and what is the working terrain of Bruña. These three uxfors also have all passed the initial phases of establishment. They were the most ‘completed’ compared to others. Besides these similarities, observing these uxfors showed many differences as well. Partly this is due to the different characters that represented their uxfor, but also to differences in area and property system.

Uxfor Chantada Parroquía: St. María de ArcosName: Fonte das MeigasSurface: 53.94 ha. 92 owners367 parcels

6.1 ChantadaIn Chantada (a village south of Lugo) I visited Olga Otero. She is the contact person of the uxfor in this region (Fonte das Meigas) and represents the owners and keeps in touch with the policy-makers. Xabier Bruña recommended this uxfor to me as the best example of the implementation of the policy. This uxfor is one of the first that has been founded so far, but also one of the most developed. Parcels are ‘cleaned’ and replanted with new, different, kinds of trees.

Otero herself is a typical example of Galician peasant. She took over the farm of her parents and worked the land mostly herself. Her husband had a job outside the house. Now Otero runs into her sixties, takes care of her mother, who also lives with her, and husband. Her farm (minifundio) is still largely self-sustainable; the meat (e.g. jamon iberico and chorizo) comes mainly from her own pigs and chicken and is slaughtered on the farm. The same goes for the eggs, vegetables, fruits, vinager, mushrooms (setas). What is left or lacks is traded with

46

Uxfor “fonte das Meigas” New planted cherry trees

View over cleaned monte

View over cleaned monteCleaned and non-cleaned monte

47

the neighbours. Only milk products were bought in the supermarket. Otero sold her cows: “It became a little too much after all”. Besides her minifundio Otero used to work for the Sindicato, the workers union, representing the farmers of Galicia. Now she is a politician for the nationalist party (BNG) in the municipal council of Chantada. Otero is very proud of the uxfor she helped to establish and the work that has been done. She is very much aware of her part as a representative of all the owners. She helped to convince the other owners to join and kept in touch with Xabier Bruña. Without any doubt she is the protagonist of the uxfor in Chantada. During my stay at her minifundio she also showed (as a real nationalist) deep affection for her land and its characteristics and expressed the need to protect these, for cultural value and economic prosperity:

“In Galicia we are very lucky, we have a lot of monte, and most of them are in very good condition. We have to utilise this richness. If we manage the monte (or uxfor) well we can diversify the production, and grow different trees, but also fruits and setas (mushrooms). There are large boletos that grow on chestnut trees. You know that we used to export them to France and Germany. These boletos are typical products of Galicia (like the chestnut trees). But with the forest fires, most boletos burned. Millions of pesetas went up in flames. “

Besides economic goals Otero also emphasises on the importance to take care of the monte, for the environment, to stop the forest fires and also for the next generation: the young people. The establishment of an uxfor brought these goals within reach, mainly by solving the administrational problems. The area used to be common property, but was divided among the vecinos about one hundred years ago into small parcels. Some people still have these property rights and can proof that they are the legal owners. However in many cases the property rights never have been forwarded to the heirs or legal papers disappeared. Most owners did not know where there parcels were exactly, or did not live in the area (parroquia) anymore.

Olga

When I arrived in Chantada I assumed I had an appointment with Olga for one afternoon. However she insisted me to stay for the whole weekend. After a moment of hesitance I grabbed this chance with both hands. For me this was a turning point. From this moment on I used mainly the ethnographic method for data collecting. Besides interviewing, observing became a very interesting method as well. Not only the conversations I had with Olga, but also experiencing her lifestyle and seeing her together with the other owners putted everything I knew about uxfors sofar (mainly from a governmental point of view) into a very different perspective. Moreover I got to know Olga as a very special woman.

48

The participantsIt was not easy to get in touch with all the owners within the uxfor-area. Otero went along all the doors and phoned most of them. Next to her telephone there was a list where declarations of interest could be noted. She especially mentions the help of Xabier Bruña. He organised the meetings and explained the policy to everybody several times.

“Xabier is a very nearby person. He explained everything clearly and went to al the reunions. He gave the people a lot of confidence. It is very important that employees of the government are very open to the people and come to you.”

What helped a lot to convince the owners to join the uxfor, was the financial support from the consellería (the department of the province of Lugo, responsible for the implementation of the uxfor-policy). In this way the owners did not had to make any costs in advance. The consellería paid for the workers that cleaned the parcels, the trees, the infrastructure (access roads).

“In this uxfor it was a little easier (to convince all the owners). Because we arranged that the costs would be paid by the consellería, the owners could join for free. If the owners would have had to pay, they would not have joined, or stopped.”

This is a remarkable phenomenon. The owners within the uxfor did not have to pay for the costs, but do profit from the harvest. The owners themselves did not see this as a controversy; they did not think they were going to make money in the uxfor. Also in the other uxfors I visited later the owners did not have to pay for costs.

Of the 100 owners, 92 joined the uxfor. The six that did not want to join had very little parcels; most of them were in use as pasture for cattle. The farmers with pastures did not want to give up their agricultural land for forestation. Others just did not have trust in politics. According to Otero “there was no way to convince them”. The parcels of these owners are marked and left outside the uxfor. There was one person that reacted in a very negative way. She phoned the police and named her a landlord from the uxfor-company, wanting to take away her land.

There were also parcels, from which the owners could not be traced. These parcels are cleaned and planted. If the owners do come back they can still decide to join or not, until then the ‘costs’ and benefits were shared among all the other participants of the uxfor. Otero could not imagine that these owners could be unhappy about the work that has been done. It only became better, right? So far none of the ‘lost’ owners did come back.

Together with Otero I visited three owners that had parcels within the uxfor. Coincidence or not, they were all good friends and announced as neighbours (vecinos). Their stories

49

corresponded largely. All of them had little parcels within the uxfor, considered it to be impossible to take care of them themselves, but participated from the first moment on. What mostly convinced them was the appearance of Xabier Bruña, he explained everything clearly. Nobody was afraid to loose their property. On the other hand, they also did not had the feeling that there was anything to loose or win. I asked one of the owners how she felt about making profit, but she replied that she did not have the illusion to earn money by joining the uxfor. The owners did not seem to be very aware of their property. For example, when I asked how many parcels they had and what the state was, they did not know or could not give a detailed answer. Olga mostly replied in their case. The participation mostly existed of going to the reunions and signing the papers. I asked what happened during such reunions, whether there was a lot discussion. This was not the case, mostly Bruña and the others of government explained what needed to be done and the owners agreed.

AdministrationAlthough the uxfor area is cleaned, replanted and new roads are constructed, not all administrative duties were completed yet. For instance the statutes were not made official up till now. According to Otero this was not really a problem:

“We had little time to complete everything on forehand. We wanted to start early with planting and that is why we do everything together now, with flexibility: administration and planting. Enrique (Alvarez) is working on that now.”

Also the ixfe was not finished yet. In what stage the plan was at that moment did not become clear, at least the cartography was finished. According the Otero the plan was sufficiently finished to start the works. In the week that followed the consellería and Enrique Alvarez (of the Xunta) would take care of the administrative tasks and complete everything. Later I confronted Bruña with these, in my eyes (see textbox), inconsistencies. Like Otero he replied there was no time to make them official:

“The ixfe was ready, but not approved officially yet. The approval takes six months and the work only one month. That is why we started with the works earlier. Ideally the ixfe is ready and approved before we start with the works, but now this was not possible.”

Why exactly it was impossible did not become clear, this was obviously not Bruñas favourite topic. However the need for good examples (best cases) and a flying start probably had to do something with the shortage of time. When I was interviewing the persons involved in the uxfor-policy there was another complication. Half a year before there had been elections and the PP had won. This had a huge impact on all the policies and political renewals the BNG and PSOE started. All policies, also the uxfor-policy, were frozen from that moment on. No new uxfors could be formed, existing uxfors could not ask for subsidies anymore and it was not clear yet whether the policy would continue in the future. For the uxfor ‘fonte

50

das meigas’ this implied that all administrative duties had to be arranged in retrospective, in order not to loose official right on subsidies that already had been spent. For the policy-makers this was an inconvenient truth. Otero was mostly combative, determined to do everything possible to make the uxfor-policy a success after all. During the weekend Otero expressed her frustration and dislike of the PP.

6.2 FonsagaradaFonsagarada is village east of Lugo. Here I visited an uxfor called “Arbilleira”, close to the hamlet (aldea) San Martin de Suarna. From this uxfor I interviewed the two contact persons/responsibles (separately): Ovidio Alvarez Santamarina en Emilio de Cereixido. Comparing this uxfor to the one of Chantada, it are mainly the differences that stand out. When I discussed the uxfors later on with Bruña he admitted that these are probably the two uxfors that differ the most within Lugo.

OwnershipThe differences can best be explained from the different systems of property rights. In Chantada the whole monte used to be private property, divided in small parcels. In Fonsagarada only a small part of the uxfor is private property. The greater part is common property, which belongs mostly to the inhabitants of San Martin de Suarna. Nonetheless,

A dutch background

Some of the issues I encountered during the field visit seemed strange to me, but were quite normal to the Galicians. This had mainly to do with my Dutch background and the differences in culture. E.g. in the Netherlands it would be almost unthinkable to start constructing, when a plan is not finished yet, or moreover when not all administrative duties have been taken care of. Most Dutch have a very fixed idea of what needs to be done en when it needs to be done. So did I. For the people I interviewed administration was something that needed to be done eventually, but not a very big case. The planning process seems to be more flexible. Furthermore I asked all owners, what the discussions were like, whether there was a lot of discussion going on. They all replied immediately that this was not the case, everybody always agreed. I was surprised, about this reaction. They took the word discussion as something negative, while I see it as a way to come to a better plan. During my time in Galicia I learned not to carry my heart on the tongue, but to ‘package’ what I had to say. While being ‘direct’ is experienced as a positive quality in the Netherlands, it is regarded as bold in Galicia, and probably most other countries

51

while the land is common property, the trees are not. The trees belong to the families (or houses as de Cereixido explains) and are marked by these families. Especially in the east of Galicia this is an ancient, but widespread property system. The trees are mostly chestnut trees and not cut completely. Only some branches are cut from the trees every year, so the trees continue growing (like eikenhakhout in the Netherlands). This type of plantation is called souto in Galician language.

This system functions well as long as everybody joins. A legal base for this type of ownership is however absent. Neither the collective ownership of land, nor the private owned trees are registered or recognised by the cadastre (land registry). This makes it impossible to deal with conflicts in a juridical way. Also, there were no arrangements for collective used infrastructure and maintenance of the monte (like cleaning, thinning out of the forest). To legalise the property system the inhabitants sought contact with the consellería of Lugo. Here Bruña was working on the development of the uxfor-policy and suggested to start an uxfor. In this way legal matters and collective management would be tackled together. Unlike in Chantada the monte was rather well maintained. This is mostly because of the type of plantation: chestnut trees leave little room for undergrowth and bushes, which makes the monte easier to maintain. Moreover the changes for forest fires are much smaller. The subsidies and money involved were not decisive.

The system functions well as longs as nobody takes advantage of the unclarities. In Fonsagarada not all the trees were marked. The unmarked trees belong to nobody, but most villagers consider these as common property. However some of the vecinos started marking, and appropriating, the unmarked trees as well.

“In between the marked trees there were some that belonged to nobody. It always used to be like that until, two years ago, a group of four owners (marcadores) started marking all the other trees. Their only aim was to enlarge their stake. Of course this was not fair, but we could not take care of this problem in a legal way. That is why we decided, during a meeting

Uxfor Fonsagarada Parroquía: St. Martín de SuarnaName: ArbilleiraSurface: 80.79 ha. 19 owners77 parcels

52

San Martín de Suarna Uxfor “Arbilleira”

Souto

Marca

Summer meeting in San Martín

53

in the summer, that it would be better to manage the forest together and to give everybody a part in the costs and profit. To work this out Ovidio and me went to the consellería in Lugo.”

Emilio de Cereixido

During our meeting I asked Ovidio Alvarez why he became the contact person. Modestly he answered that somebody had to do it, so why not him. Nonetheless Alvarez was also one of the youngest closely related to the aldea. He was not an owner himself, the trees were still in name of his father. But since his father is over 90 years old and not able to take care of the property anymore, Alvarez covers the duties. This is not an uncommon phenomenon. Depopulation and ageing of population is largely spread in Galicia, especially in the eastern part. Because of this not many are left that are (physically and mentally) able to manage the monte. Emilio de Cereixido turned out to be an important stakeholder, being the largest owner (with the highest number of trees) of the aldea.

Communication with ownersIn 2007 this uxfor was initiated. However, it took a while before the uxfor was operational. Not every owner did agree from the first moment. Also sometimes owners did not live in the parroquia anymore and were hard to keep in touch with. Because of the complexity of the property system all owners had to be contacted and convinced. Also new arrangements were made about the share every owner had, before the statutes could be made official. In the draft version of the statutes all inhabitants of the village were included, also the ones

San Martin de Suarna

At Olga’s I already tasted the peasant life in Galicia, during the field visit in San Martin de Suarna I got to experience some more. The road description was already remarkable. First we had to drive to Fonsagarada, once there we had to ask for San Martin de Suarna and in San Martin we would need to ask for Emilio. This is the place where strangers do not exist and everybody knows each other. Even we, the outsiders, got a new identity quickly. When asking around we met many old men on the side of the road, curious and very willing to help. They guided us trough the labyrinth of San Martin. This aldea (like all I would say) grew in an organic way. It looked like every new family added something to the hamlet, a house, a road or little square. Now the aldea is shrinking, old families die out, young people leave to the cities. Before I visited this uxfor I was never so aware of depopulation in rural areas. Now we are in the transition phase. Old people still live in the hamlets, but these hamlets are not regenerating anymore. Probably within twenty years the area will look very different from now on. It is also the transition phase that will be the hardest I think, when basic services (like shops, health care, maybe even schools) are still needed, but is hard to provide.

54

without trees. The stakes were more or less redistributed, though the division in size more or less remained the same. The owners without trees, got a minimum stake of 8 trees, while e.g. the stake of de Cereixido (with the largest stake) exists of 34 trees. Only the marcador (the person that appropriates trees that were not claimed yet) does not agree with the division of stakes, he claims to have more trees.

Though this uxfor seems to be more autonomous than the one of Chantada, still the policy-makers took care of many things. “We did not have to do anything” as Alvarez says. The Xunta provided information, explained the plans and if the owners (or in this case the contact persons) did not like it, the Xunta would change that. But that actually never happened, claimed both Alvarez and de Cereixido. I asked how they communicated with the other owners involved. Every year in September they organised a reunion with all the neighbours. In summer all the inhabitants are home, and also their families (children and grandchildren) usually spent the summer holidays here. By organising the reunion in September everybody could join. During this reunion all important and urgent matters are discussed, also about the uxfor. Year round Alvarez and de Cereixido took most decisions.

“If we would have to explain everything it would be too complicated. They do not really care anyway, and also do not think it would yield profit. Most people are very old, like my father, it is impossible to explain everything. I take most decisions in his case. That is why we organise a reunion in September, when everybody is here. If they don’t like it we can always change it. But that never happens. Me and an other person do most of the work. We prepared the statutes, kept in touch with all the instances. The others acknowledge this and trust that we do that with the best intensions. I don’t think they will blame us for anything.”Ovidio Alvarez

Apart from the marcador, San Martin de Suarna can be seen as a very united community. The important decisions are taken during the yearly reunions, and the more daily affairs are trusted to two contact persons or responsibles. However this probably also implies that without these two there would not have been an uxfor, like it is hard to imagine an uxfor in Chantada without Otero.

6.3 O IncioThe last uxfor I visited was the one in O Incio (Góo), also south from Lugo. After exploring the extremes of Chantada and Fonsagarada, the case of O Incio mostly confirmed what I knew about uxfors, their implementation and local organisation. However this case was very illustrative for some aspects of the uxfor that could be noticed in the other two places as well, but in an implicit way.

The uxfor of O Incio includes both private parcels as well as collectively owned monte. Both parts were ill-managed for a long time, especially the monte. According to Carlos Gallego,

55

the contact person of this uxfor, it was necessary to do something and starting an uxfor was the only way to do so. Until then communications failed for collective action. Gallego himself was the youngest contact person I met (in his forties) and lives with his family on a farm, just outside the aldea of Góo. On our way to his house, Gallego showed me the new road that was constructed with subsidy from the Xunta and the common monte that was still uncultivated.

Coming into being of this uxforThis uxfor started in 2008. The consellería initiated the uxfor-policy in O Incio. The neighbours (vecinos) came together, during the reunions that were organised. Apart from the consellería O Incio received a lot of support from Seaga (the department of the Xunta responsible for the implementation of the uxfor-policy, where Enrique Alvarez works). Like in the other uxfors most effort was spent on localising and convincing all the owners to join. Most owners joined from the beginning, two do not want join and two are untraceable. For the coming into being of this uxfor these four did not give any problems. They only had small parcels and were left out of the uxfor-area. Nonetheless there was one owner that was hard to convince, but also held a strategic position within the uxfor:

“With one owner we had some trouble. He has a very large house, the largest of the village, and has a lot of property within the uxfor. He resisted a great deal in the beginning. There were problems with the family, because they were all heirs and spread all over Spain. He first had to talk with all of them. Some of the family members did not want to join, others did not respond, others that did not understand…It took a lot of time to receive permission from all of them, over half a year.”

Sustainability In the beginning of the process a lot of meetings were organised, almost monthly. Gallego explains that this was mainly to convince everybody and explain everything: “there is a lot

Uxfor O Incio Parroquía: GóoName: GóoSurface: 61.16 ha. (12.30 ha. common monte) 36 owners219 parcels

56

View over monte of Góo

Uxfor of “Góo” Administration of Gallego

Interviewing one of the owners Newly constructed road

57

of distrust, there are a lot of conservatives here”. When everybody confirmed, it was not necessary to organise so many meetings anymore. The Xunta and the consellería continued preparing the technical plan and organised the cleaning of the parcels. Like in the other uxfors, the costs were covered by the government. Gallego was very clear about that:

“It is better to do this (take care of the monte) with money from the government. Without, it would be impossible. It would cost a lot of money, and we would have to clean every year. Imagine, we would have to pay every year, but we can only valorise the monte after forty years, when we cut the trees. If there is a forest fire before those forty years, we would loose everything. If you stop managing the forest after twenty years, the monte will be abandoned. It is better to do the work without your money, but with common funds.”

None of the others I spoke about uxfors so far were that explicit about the attitude of local participants towards land abandonment and the aid of the government. Nonetheless I think the quote above is very characteristic for most owners, not only in the areas with uxfors, but in Galicia in general. According to Gallego Galicia is a very individualistic country: “(in principal) Everybody wanted to take care of his private trees (parcels), but not of the commonly owned monte. It should be no surprise that most people vote for the conservativist PP.”

When I spent a weekend with Olga Otero, her daughter came along. Together we discussed the current state of the uxfor. While Otero was still very positive about the (future) dedication of the owners involved, her daughter warned her not to be too positive. After meeting the owners it also occurred to me that remaining positive about the willingness to put effort into the monte among the owners, might be wishful thinking. The remark of Otero’s daughter is maybe the most revealing: “Mama, do you really think these people will invest in the monte?” Otero remained silent.

Together with Carlos Gallego I visited two owners that lived in the nearby aldea. One of them did have property in the uxfor, the other choose not to join. The first told the same story as the neighbours of Olga. He joined because otherwise it would be impossible to do the cleaning and because the maintenance was something concerning all the owners. The second owner was an interesting case. I asked him why he did not join:

“I only have two little parcels within the uxfor, with very little surface. In the common part I do join, but the little terrains we manage ourselves. They are cleaned and we do not need help for that. … The ones after me, my children, and the little ones, they can do what they want. If they want to join the uxfor, that is no problem. But I can do the work myself.”

The man went to the first meetings, but that did not convince him. He did not consider it to be worthwhile for a few little parcels.

58

6.4 Deadlock or continuation – different responsesThe interviewed representatives also were confronted with the change of government and sudden deadlock in the implementation process. Their different responses towards this change, represent the differences between the uxfors. Also the answers of the representatives were sharpened by the current state of affairs. The deadlock made the representatives think about their position, and about what the position of the Xunta should be.

Otero, politician herself, was looking for ways to fight the decision the new government made. From her story it appeared that she was preparing collective action for continuation of the uxfors. She was organising a meeting with all the representatives, in Chantada (because that was the centre of Galicia). Otero held close contacts with Alvarez and Bruña, the latter helped her contacting all the representatives. Also the workers union (sindicato labrego gallego) was involved. Because, according to Otero, without them it was impossible to do anything. They put pressure on the current government and know how to organise demonstrations, when needed. Otero reacted mainly fiercely. She was frustrated, wanted to fight against the new policy first, before thinking about other options. During one of our conversations she said:

“You know, a young woman proposed to continue as an association of owners, if the Xunta does not want to help. But first we are going to fight them.”

Also the uxfor of Fonsagarada thinks about continuing as an association of owners. For them this step is not so radical. They started more or less as an association. Moreover, the costs of maintenance are low in this uxfor, the owners can handle them themselves. Only legality of the collective management is bothering them. Especially if for example the marcadores decide to disagree on the formation of an association, this could have effects for the whole village.

An individual country The people I met in O Incio turned out to be as frank as Galicians can be, if you get to know them a little bit better. Carlos Gallego considered it important for me to speak also with opponents of the uxfor-policy. I was very happy about that, especially because I was not able too at the other two uxfors. What surprised me mostly, was that nobody of the village considered it to be possible to take care of the uxfor themselves, except for the person that did not join. The conversations with Gallego and the others also made me doubt about the sustainability of the current approach, where the Xunta takes care of everything…

59

In O Incio the people were disappointed by the current state of affairs. Preparing the statutes and mobilising all the owners took a long time. Therefore little time was spent on the cleaning and plantation of the parcels. A new road was made, but that was more or less it. The owners liked the initiative, but did not feel like taking further action. The representative was waiting for a response from the policy-makers about what to do next.

With Bruña I had a second interview, about what is done now for the existing uxfors. I confronted Bruña with the actions taken in retrospective1. He avoided the question, but admitted that he still helped the existing groups where needed:

“The groups that want to continue (in one way or another), I work with them and help where needed. Because the risk that comes with a political change, is not a risk of them. That is why I believe it is necessary to continue to help.”

1 See 6.1 Chantada; during the first interview with Bruña he explained it was impossible to do anything now, since the new government. Later Otero explained Bruña was still working on legalising the statutes of the uxfor and other administrative duties in retrospective.

60

61

7 Analysis - From paternalism to a par-From paternalism to a par-ticipatory approachThe previous chapters gave insight in what is going on in rural Galicia. It showed how the government and local owners deal with the emergence of new ways of land use planning and how this is related to Galicia’s historical background. The different perspectives on the uxfor-policy revealed more than just the coming into being of a new policy instrument. It also showed how policy-makers dealt with the shaping and implementation, how important it was for them to involve the local owners and how they were balancing between new approaches and old ways of doing. The uxfor-policy is an example of the changing role of the government; from taking care of everything to active involvement of citizens. Policy-makers are actively looking for new ways to promote more participatory forms of policy implementation.

Galicia is not the only country dealing with new ways of policy-making. Most European countries are walking the path of a participatory approach in policy-making and implementation. In North-Western Europe these practices are already largely visible. In other parts of Europe they are emerging. The sociologists of the private agency named the participatory discourse that exists in large parts of Europe and is now also gaining ground in Galicia. The EU actively promotes citizen participation and social cohesion. Moreover, when applying for most EU-subsidies participation of local actors is a precondition. The direct effect is that nowadays many EU-funded projects (like LEADER) are set up from a local level. However, the promotion of citizen participation and social cohesion also has an indirect effect on the implementation of national and regional policies. Countries adopt this discourse and try to act on it, also within their own policies (Keating 2001). At the same time countries actively shape this discourse, by selling good practices. Also the uxfor-policy had to become a good practice. The policy-makers tried everything within their hands to make this happen.

In this chapter first the changing role of government in Galicia is described. This role is evolving from a point where governments were in charge of everything, ready to take care of everything, towards a government that actively cooperates with citizens and other stakeholders in policy-making and policy implementation.

The second part of this chapter elaborates on the participatory discourse. This discourse comprehends three key components: social capital, endogenous development and (more concretely) the formation of partnerships. These components are used to explain the relationship between the owners within uxfors and the Xunta and province of Lugo.

62

7.1 From paternalism to (good) governanceWoods (2005) describes a development in governing styles: from paternalism, via clientalism to (good) governance. When studying the uxfor-policy all these styles were visible. The following sections will elaborate on these styles and how they influence policy-making and implementation in (rural) Galicia.

7.1.1 PaternalismFor a long time, power in rural societies was distributed through the control of resources, in particular trough land ownership. Those who had access to land, had access to local wealth. Land owners could rent their land to other local citizens. The land owner provided employment and accommodation, which made non-owners dependent and confirmed the power of the land owner. This wealth also enabled land owners to obtain scarce resources like transport (or infrastructure) and to participate in public services and government. In this way land owners got, besides privileges and status, responsibilities for the whole rural society. It was the elite that took care of the development of local infrastructure, economic development, housing, and also education and hospitals. The role of the state and the local government was limited. (Woods 2005)

In the beginning of the twentieth century this system of rural leadership was largely present in the whole of Europe (Woods 2005). As described in the third and fourth chapter, this changed in Galicia soon afterwards. Large landowners were mostly replaced by many small self-sustaining owners. Power was distributed among the small land owners. For the first time they were able to build up their own wealth, so they did. One of the interviewees named Galicia an individualistic country, where everybody’s interest lays with their property and private goods, and not with common goods. The governing role of the large land owners was taken over by local and regional governments and later (put to the extreme) by the national government, under the regime of Franco.

“The people see the Xunta as their mama; she will take care of everything” said the representative for the Xunta, responsible for the implementation of the uxfor-policy. After the regime of Franco, national powers were distributed again to the regional level. The Xunta is responsible for most policy regulations. Although paternalism is mainly associated with a pre-governmental, feudal society, paternalism is still visible in Galicia. If it is not the Xunta being in control, it are the larger land owners. The establishment of the uxfors was in some cases dependent on the willingness of the largest owners to cooperate, like in O Incio. Or, for example in Fonsagarada, it were the largest owners who took responsibility for the establishment. The two sociologists from an external private agency admitted that they were always looking for protagonists, the notables of the small communities, who could help them promoting the uxfor-policy. The representatives of Chantada and Fonsagarada can be seen as such.

63

7.1.2 ClientalismWhile the Xunta might be a remote governmental body, the representative of the provincial government of Lugo proved that government can also be a nearby body. For all local owners he was the person that brought the policy to them, explained everything clearly and convinced most of them to join the uxfor. For the success and implementation of the policy this person played a key role. In Galicia this role is not unique. Probably every province and every policy has a representative like this. As explained in the previous chapter personal involvement plays an important role in the implementation of policies like this. After every election new officials are appointed; these are often friends or party members of the new chosen coalition. Politics and policy-making are closely related. In the Spanish (and Galician) language there does not exist a difference between politics and policy, for both the word política is used. On the one hand this leads to a high level of democratisation. Civil servants or governmental officials do not form a power on their own, but are ideologically related to the policy they are developing. Sometimes this makes them willing to put an extra effort in their work. On the other hand, a lot of political friends are needed before a new policy can be executed. This does not always lead to rational1 and transparent decisions.

Clientalism is present in many governmental systems, not only in southern (European) countries. Healey (2006) describes clientalism as a system that involves an interactive relationship between politicians and government officials, through social networks of the politicians and officials. These social networks are used for allocating and distributing resources, mostly in a non-transparent way. Resources could be distributed for personal gains (e.g. a befriended construction developer could be tolerated illegal building, in exchange of political support). In Galicia (and Spain) however most favours are not executed for personal good; resources are mostly distributed along political lines, and for the greater good of a certain region (Batterbury 2002, Keating 2001, Healey 2006).

Keating (2001) refers, when mentioning clientalism, to local barons or patrons in Galicia. Here he mentions the PP explicitly, which is the party that has been in charge mostly before 2005 and that is known for their top-down organisation. However, I believe that the system of regional intermediates is not exclusively used by the PP.

“The Spanish provinces are a key level of intermediation and distribution. Each is run by a PP ‘baron’, who thus channels both state and regional government patronage and keeps the local mayors in line. The barons, with their territorial power bases, are also key actors in Xunta politics, with rights of appointment to ministerial and official posts. These institutions correspond poorly to the organization of civil society and popular perception, focused on the parish (paroquía) or slightly larger area (comarca). This, together with control

1 With a rational decision is meant that all reasonable alternatives are taken into account and the most optimal, given the circumstances, alternative is chosen (Healey, quoted in Allmend-inger 2002).

64

of patronage and links into state and regional administration, enables the barons to maintain control and depress levels of popular mobilization and participation.”

Keating (2001, p229)

Also during the implementation of the uxfor-policy the province of Lugo, in this case, played a key role. This role was embodied by Bruña, who was responsible for the implementation at the provincial level. He was the link between the Xunta and the uxfors, but he also expanded his mandate beyond the formal job description. In order to make the policy a success and gain result quickly, actions were taken before the paperwork was completed (see chapter 8). Like the PP barons he was one of the key actors in Xunta politics and had more or less a territorial power base, and the charisma to convince. On the other hand his power did not go beyond his working field, nor was he able to ‘keep the local mayors in line’, or had he power over governors. There is another distinction between Keatings barons and Lugo’s representative. Keating disputes the level of popular mobilisation and participation, which is depressed by the local barons. In Lugo this was not the case, on the contrary, the level of participation was increased with the help of Lugo’s representative. This contrast might be very illustrative for the change of direction the previous government chose. The Galicia Keating investigated was before the governmental turnover. Yet, while some things might have changed old patterns are still visible, like the importance of a local power base and representatives that explore the boundaries of their formal power (or willing to take pains for their region).

Like paternalism, clientalism can be explained in different ways. For most people both systems have a negative undertone. It suggests illegal practices, personal favours at the expense of common goods and weak governing. After all, it also makes the government engage in peoples live. Clientalism results in more direct linkages between local actors and government, and a higher level of political commitment. To quote Healey (2006, p232):

“In the context of the efforts to make government more responsive and collaborative with business and citizens, however, it should not be forgotten that clientalism has long been a way of linking government and citizen in a direct way”.

7.1.3 Good governance / A new kind of policy-makingThe governmental officials I interviewed in Galicia, said to be working on a change in governing approach. They were working on more transparency and more involvement of local people. According to them this was necessary and better, but why it was necessary and better was hard for them to explain. In most countries the concept of governance is gaining ground. It is seen as a successor of other governmental systems like paternalism or modernism. In the this section the concept of governance and its impact on rural areas and Galicia is discussed.

65

Governance is not an easy concept in use. Literally it means the activity of governing; governance is what the government does. The simple definition Healey (2006) gives to the concept is “the management of common affairs of political communities”.

“Governance involves the articulation of rules of behaviour with respect to the collective affairs of a political community; and of principles for allocating resources among community members. It is represented in measures for managing the defence of a society against attack, for economic promotion, as well as those for providing for the welfare of members of a society in times of youth, old age, sickness and other troubles.” Healey (2006), p59

Yet this concept can be fulfilled in many ways. The statements above do not say anything about how these common affairs are managed, or with which governmental ideology. One could say that as long as there is government there is governance; whether it is organised in a technocratic, paternalist, clientalist or collaborative way. Nevertheless, nowadays governance is mostly understood as a concept in which government, citizens and private companies collectively take care of common affairs. The role of government has changed into a less autonomous and absolute one, which resulted in different forms of collaboration between public and private stakeholders (Boonstra 2009). Governance is not simply an academic synonym for government, ( Goodwin 1998) ‘it refers to the development of governing styles in which the boundaries between and within public and private sectors have become blurred’ (Stoker 1996, quoted in Goodwin 1998). Governance has become a normative concept that entails an expanding vision on what good practices are. In order to avoid misunderstanding, governance as a normative concept will be mentioned as good governance. There are several processes that illustrate the concept of good governance. Woods & Goodwin (2003) mention five key changes that indicate good rural governance:

“- The scaling back of state activities in rural government, including deregulation in sectors such as agriculture and transport, the privatization of state-owned agencies and companies, and the engagement of private and voluntary sector organisations in local government functions. - The shifting of responsibilities from the state to ‘active citizens’ and the engagement of communities through partnership working on a local scale. - The greater coordination of rural policy delivery, including the amalgamation of government departments and agencies and formation of partnerships between different tiers and sectors of government.- The replacement of some specifically rural institutions in favour of regional bodies encompassing both rural and urban areas.- Reforms to elected local government, including changes to the powers, finances and territories of local councils.”

Woods & Goodwin (2003, p250)

66

These key changes make good rural governance more concrete and easier to grasp, as it is now about a specific role of government. It is about decentralisation, active involvement of citizens and the formation of partnerships.

The question that remains is: how does the concept of good (rural) governance fit Galicia? Applying the concept to the Galician situation causes friction at certain points. Good governance is mostly understood as a changing role of government and changing relations with private stakeholders. Most literature on good rural governance describes this change from a western European or Anglesaksian background (Goodwin 1998, Stoker 1996, Healey 2006, Boonstra 2009, Edwards et.al. 2001, Woods 2005, Ray 2000, Whelch 2002). This background involves two major developments. The first is the period after the Second World War, during which the welfare state developed rapidly and (agricultural) production was modernised. This was the modern era, the era of rapid progress, stimulated and catalysed by a strong government. The second major development came around during the 1980s (Woods 2005), when the role of the state was eroding and the limits of progress became clear. Civil society recognised these limits, and called for action. Especially since the 1990s local actors and institutions gained extended rights to act and react in the political and economic environment. As a consequence self-regulation at the local level became more important, like decentralisation and involvement of market-oriented and private parties.

In Spain the first development is absent (see chapter 3). There was no Second World War in Spain. Instead Spain was a dictatorship until 1978, under the regime of Franco. This also implied that Spain did not undergo a modernisation era. In Galicia, for instance, agricultural production has hardly been modernised. This has a major effect on the second change, which was more or less a counter reaction on the first. In the 1980s Spain became a democracy and the government is still evolving. In order to catch up with Europe, modernisation is still needed. Regional governments, like the Xunta are working on that. This also makes that, in Galicia, there is no call for a more decentralised government, or active involvement of citizens from society itself. While most affairs might be handled in a centralised way, the government was also close by through a whole network of political representatives. The change that is involved with good governance is hard to notice in Galicia. It are mostly external forces, like the European Union, that call for good governance.. This might explain why it was hard for the policy-makers I interviewed to clarify why it was better and necessary to change their approach in policy-making; the call for this change did probably not come from within.

Instead of using the concept of good governance to explain how the relation between the Xunta and local owners is articulated through the uxfor-policy, it might be easier to use a more concrete concept. In fact the policy changes the Xunta wanted are not that complicated. They wanted more involvement of civilians; in this case landowners. There are

67

good reasons for that, as the problem of land abandonment is almost impossible to tackle without cooperation of the land owners. The demand for active citizenship is also part of the change the Xunta was working on. Although the Xunta is changing her approach towards a more participatory one, she stays in charge. Responsibilities are hardly shifted towards other institutions, citizens, partnerships or private companies. The government is still mostly in control. Illustrative is that governmental officials of the Xunta and the province of Lugo were taking care of all administrative aspects in retrospective.

While active involvement of citizens might be difficult to rise, the representatives of the government saw the opportunity to bring the uxfor-policy to the people. Nobody of the interviewed owners experienced the government as patronising or as a remote body interfering into their affairs. They all indicated the representatives of the governments as close by persons, ready to do everything for them. While in other societies far-reaching governmental intervention would be understood as a negative development, in Galicia it obviously was not. In most western European societies (like the Netherlands) there are complains about governments that are too far removed from its citizens. In Galicia a gap between government and citizens also exists, but policy-makers seem to have little trouble to overcome this gap. The Galician case showed that different styles (like clientalism and a participatory approach) can exist next to each other and interact.

7.2 The participatory discourseThe change that is involved with good governance, or the coming into being of a participatory approach in policy-making, corresponds largely with the previous described development of the European discourse on social cohesion and active involvement of citizens. Woods and Goodwin (2003) name several mechanisms as key indicators involved with good governance; like social capital, the coming into being of a participatory approach and the development of partnerships. Within the European discourse the government is mostly seen as a facilitator, helping citizens and local economies to explore and develop their potentials. The following sections focus on three aspects of this discourse; social capital, endogenous development and partnerships & participatory practices.

Social capital is the equivalent of enlarging social cohesion and active citizenship. Endogenous development focuses on self-exploration of rural societies and economies. And the formation of partnerships is about how governments and local stakeholders could realise local participation. Each concept has an ideal-type. However they are also theoretical notions. In this chapter they are used to examine the positive aspect of the uxfor-policy, to which extend the ideals are met, but also the downside of the implantation process.

68

7.2.1 Social CapitalDuring the first interview the representative of the province of Lugo explained the uxfor-policy in general. One of the most noteworthy statements was that the uxfor-policy was mostly about social capital. By this he meant the active involvement of land-owners, when establishing uxfors. Later it became clear that this active involvement should be taken with a grain of salt. Apart from the uxfor representatives, most land owners did not play a major part. They functioned as minor actors, as the critical mass needed to found an uxfor, but they were not actively involved. Most land owners had other concerns than maintaining that small forested parcel they had somewhere and were little motivated to change their behaviour. What convinced them to join was the appearance of the representative of Lugo

Slovakia as eye-opener

The writing of this analysis was interrupted by a two week course (Intensive Programme on Rural Development) in Slovakia. This programme was organised by a partnership of twelve European Universities. From every (agricultural) university several students and tutors joined, mostly from departments in rural economics or development. It was interesting to hear different vision on how rural regions should be developed, but also to see that most were coloured by the same ideals. Social cohesion, active involvement of citizens and integration of different economical sectors were seen as important pre-conditions for sustainable rural development. The first two days were filled with lectures. Among the most important topics were governance, social capital (and endogenous development) and the development of partnerships. Though I absorbed the information with some criticism (most lectures were told from a rather economical point of view, modelling the human being as a homo economicus), it was interesting to see the participatory discourse also prevails here. When visiting the Slovakian countryside it was fascinating to observe that the same problems are experienced as in Galicia. Although the nature of the problems is completely different, the issues are more or less the same. First, in Slovakia land abandonment is a huge problem. Of almost 20% of all land the original owners (the owners before the communist system claimed all properties) cannot be retraced. This land cannot be used for public or private goals. Secondly the population in the rural areas is ageing quickly, and are rural areas depopulating. And lastly, most local governments experienced a lack of active citizenship and were looking for ways to promote involvement. Though most of the municipal projects focused on the establishment of basic services, the local action groups (LAGs, part of the EU-LEADER-programme) concentrated preliminary on the establishment of partnerships and development of social cohesion. Also here the participatory discourse is gaining ground.

69

and the promise that the change of management system would not affect them in a negative way. The representative of the province of Lugo had both a positive and negative impact on building social capital. He united the owners in the uxfor, without him this probably would not have been possible. However, the owners were not stimulated to be actively involved, because the policy-makers took care of everything.

Just as the role of the governmental representatives is dual when promoting social capital, so is the concept in itself. One of the most common explanations is that social capital is a cooperative way of getting things done, and that social capital is seen as contributing to goal achievement on the basis of relationships. However, contributing to goal achievement on the basis of relationships can be regarded in an individual and collective way (Tisenkopfs, Lace and Mierina 2008).

The individualistic version of social capital is mainly instrumental: the source of the capital is collective, while its use is mainly for individual means. Social capital could be used to reproduce status, power and social position. In this respect social capital also holds close relations with the earlier explained clientalism. Also in the clientalistic system social relations play a major role in the achievement of common and individual goals. The political network of governmental representatives was used to find suitable contact persons for the uxfors they had in mind. They again used their social network to involve as much land owners as possible. It explains the positive impact the policy-makers had on building social capital.

According to the collective view on social capital, social capital is a collective good that is collectively embodied and best used in a collaborative way. It is about shared values, trust, reciprocity, participation and solidarity. In this way social capital is much less subject to alteration or opportunism, than in the individual explanation. When explaining the uxfor-policy, this was what the policy-makers had in mind. In first place starting the uxfor was about gaining trust and taking care of a collective good as landscape (to clean the monte). The province of Lugo understood that this was difficult to sell. The repayment (through making the monte profitable) is not very certain. By paying for all the costs this threshold was overcome. Conversely, by taking over the responsibility for managing the properties, collective social capital was (unintentionally) underdeveloped. People did not have the chance to feel responsible by themselves.

One can question how sustainable the freshly established (collective) social capital is. While the uxfor-policy is paused by the new government, uncertainties raise. Subsidies or administrative support is no longer available. If uxfors want to continue they have to do it by themselves and make their own investments. However, participants cannot be certain whether they will profit from it or not. Especially in Chantada and O Incio these uncertainties took the overhand. The critical mass seemed reluctant to invest in the common

70

good; this was a governmental duty according to most. Establishing social capital takes a long time and several stages (Tisenkopfs, Lace and Mierina 2008). The uxfors were only in the starting phase, most of them did only exist for a year. Usually it can take up to decades to form a solid base for collective social capital.

Tisenkopfs, Lace and Mierina (2008) emphasise that social capital, and active citizenship with it, cannot be created through direct investments. It should come from within, and be established from the bottom. Still, available funds and governmental support could help to lower the threshold to join or start local initiatives focused on developing common goods. The next section focuses on these endogenous forces within societies and the power exogenous forces might have.

7.2.2 Endogenous developmentThe uxfor-policy was mainly focused on developing economic and social potentials within the uxfor-areas. The Xunta was looking for ways to make the monte profitable again and to let the owners profit. At the same time owners would become more active and environment better managed. In literature this development is denoted as endogenous development. Mühlinghaus and Wälty (2001) explain endogenous development as: “... self-determent participatory development based on regional needs and the use of endogenous potentials”. According to them the benefits are mainly social and cultural: it raises people’s awareness of local problems, promotes community bonds, and fosters local identity. Uniting the private parcels and collective management was one way of uniting the local community as well and to let them profit from their local resources.

Albeit the use of local resources (in the broadest sense, so also social capital is involved) is emphasised in endogenous development, excluding external resources is not an objective in itself. National or EU policies, or in this case the Xunta and the province of Lugo, can help promoting endogenosity (Ray 2006.) Ray (2006) introduces neo-endogenous development, in which he sets apart a larger role for the governments (or actors in the politico-administrative system). According to Ray (2006) neo-endogenous development

“… retains a bottom-up core in that local territories and actors are understood as having the potential for (mediated) agency, yet understands that extra-local factors, inevitably and crucially, impact on – and are exploitable by – the local level.”

Ray (2006), p280

Most communities have problems to work out an initiative completely by themselves. Governments could then play an important role in supporting these initiatives, finding ways to use and control local resources and establishments of local networks. The uxfor in Fonsagarada showed great potential for endogenous development. The owners of the trees

71

within the collective owned monte were themselves looking for ways to manage and exploit the forest in a collective way. However when exploring the possibilities, they met several problems. The non-existence of a legal base for the collective property was one of them; the unwillingness of some community-members to join was another. With the uxfor-policy in their hand, the Xunta was able to overcome these problems.

One can question themselves whether the other two cases can be considered as (neo-) endogenous initiatives. The representatives of Chantada and O Incio did show an intrinsic will to establish collective ownership, and put themselves forward for local control of their forestal potential (as the representative of Chantada named it). Nevertheless the initiative came from outside, the idea of a bottom-up approach came from above, and moreover, it was executed and controlled from above. The owners within the uxfors did not have to do anything. In this way the establishment of uxfors can mostly be seen as an exogenous development, catalysed by the Xunta in order to gain successes as quickly as possible. This is not necessarily a negative development. In some regions the effect (e.g. the change in landscape) was enormous. For most people it was hard to believe that it was possible to develop their property into a profitable and manageable piece of land. In these cases the government can fulfil a leading role and be a catalyser for more endogenous forms of development on the long term. Even so, the problem with purely exogenous developments is that they come to a standstill as soon as the external inputs are removed. In Galicia it was the new parliament that decided not to support the uxfor-policy until further notice. For most local communities this was the end of their uxfor.

Ray (2006) explains that the area of tension between external and internal inputs remains intangible and difficult to manage.

“The politico-administrative rationale for neo-endogenous development, on the one hand, can be a matter of efficiency: targeting funding on those localities where there is most need or apparent capacity to respond to the opportunity. On the other hand it is a manifestation of the state managerialism whereby the state enter into arrangements with (partnerships of ) local actors contracted to deliver policy objectives, justified by the expectation that effective policy implementation requires interventions to be responsive to the local context and to allow for the active participation of local actors, as well as public sectors.” Ray (2006), p288

In this way local governments (but also regional, like the Xunta) take a difficult position. It is not just a matter of distributing funding to the cases where it is needed the most. Expenses also need to be checked, local communities need to be contracted and efficiency needs to be proved. All these interventions tend to hamper initiatives from local communities themselves. Especially the case of efficiency is difficult. In the end most governments feel that the most efficient way of policy-making is controlling all levels of implementation

72

themselves. This leads to a very top-down implementation of what was supposed to be a bottom-up initiative (Ray 2006). Also for the Xunta and the province of Lugo it was a matter of efficiency to implement the uxfores quickly and in agreement with the local community. By taking care of the largest part of the work, they were able to control the implementation and even speed it up.

Thus, the role of the government as an external input cannot be denied in endogenous developments and bottom-up initiatives. Especially in regions where active involvement of the local community does not go without saying, governments can be an important catalyser. However, as Ray (2006) states in his definition, the core should be the local community. It is here were the development potential should be developed and further exploited.

7.2.3 Partnerships and participatory approaches.So far the social dynamics within the uxfor-policy, and the relation between governments and local communities (owners) seems hard to grasp. The concepts of social capital and endogenous development are in essence abstract and can be explained in various ways. Also in literature they are mostly used to explain the position of the local communities and their potential for being innovative. In the case of the uxfors the emphasis is mostly put on the governments, since it was their innovative idea and wish to involve the local community.

Westholm et.al. (1999) examined several concrete cases in which public, private and voluntary actors worked together. All cases involved partnerships, and although they differed in many ways, it is also one of the more concrete ways to study participation of several stakeholders within rural areas. According to Woods the formation of partnerships lies at the core of good governance. In essence an uxfor is also a partnership. It is a group of local citizens working together with the Xunta (or the other way around) on one area with a common goal: the collective management of their forested private parcels.

The formation of partnerships can have several advantages, such as community involvement, capacity building, empowerment (self-exploration) and active citizenship and therefore on the establishment of social capital and potential for endogenous development. Nevertheless, Mosely, also included several critiques about partnerships in general:

1. Partnerships are often arenas in which it is hard or impossible for the outsider to take part in or to get information from. They often exclude groups that generally have little access to power and recourses. 2. Partnerships tend to be conservative as a result of their consensus building character. Only ideas that most or all partners like can be carried out. They may also be conservative because they are normally put together by the establishment and therefore organisations that are traditionally in a region get a favoured position in the partnerships.3. Partnerships tend to avoid conflicts and are badly suited to handle conflicts, once again

73

depending on their consensus building character.4. Behind partnerships there is a hidden, partial privatisation, in which the private sector is invited on diffuse mandates to take political decisions.5. Partnerships are often unclear when it comes to responsibilities and/ or executive power. This is a result of their cross-sector character.

Mosely (in Westholm et.al 1999, p153)

Uxfors seem to have a unilateral character; they only exist of owners that have parcels within the uxfor area. There are no other sectors or organisations involved, only the Xunta and province of Lugo hold tight relations with the uxfors. The private sector is absent. This makes some of the critiques inapplicable, and evokes new critiques at the same time. Also within the uxfors a lot of emphasis was put on consensus building. This process was eased by the indifference of the “critical mass”, most owners within the uxfor. Not every owner needs to be as involved as the representative of the uxfor (local promotor), but in general active citizenship is an important precondition for a successful partnership. The prominent role of the governments and their take over of all administrative tasks and costs, led to an unclear division of responsibilities and executive power. One can ask whether the reunions were really about consensus building, or mostly about legitimisation of formed plans (like the ixfe, or technical plan). On paper the owners within uxfors should contribute, in practice it were the governments. The lack of clarity in division of tasks does not exist within the uxfor partnership, but is mainly shifted towards an external governmental body.

74

8 Conclusion - Balancing between gov-erning styles

When I went to Galicia I was preliminary interested in participatory practices in spatial planning and the relation between civilians and governments when forming and implementing spatial policies for rural areas. This scope led to a number of successive revelations and insights. Slowly the field research in Galicia led to this thesis. First it was difficult to grasp what was going on. I was struggling with Spanish language and letting go of a Dutch view on spatial policy-making and participatory approaches. The Gallegos I met tried to understand my interest in participatory processes, but found it hard to relate it to Galicia’s current rural policies. After a few months I was introduced to the uxfor-policy. According to many this was the first rural policy organised in a bottom-up way. By studying the implementation of the uxfor-policy, I discovered that the Xunta was struggling with this participatory ideal. The Xunta is balancing between different governmental approaches. On the one hand are the old, clientalistic ways of policy-making deeply embedded in Galicia’s culture. On the other hand there is the new participatory approach that the Xunta aimed for when implementing the uxfor-policy. They felt it was better to involve the people when shaping and implementing new spatial policies. While looking for a balance, several areas of tensions emerged:

- The policy-makers wanted to establish success quickly. By taking care of almost all aspects of implementation, it was possible to found uxfors in an efficient and quick way. However, creating active citizenship usually takes much more time and patience.

- It was difficult to involve the citizen actively. The Xunta wanted to create active citizenship, but citizens expected the government to take care of common affairs. Citizens felt this was out of their responsibilities.

- Land abandonment and depopulation are deep-rooted problems at the Galician countryside. The uxfor-policy tries to deal with these developments. But how can active citizenship be stimulated if the largest part of the population is well over 65, and most landowners live in other regions?

These areas of tension are interrelated with each other and with many other specific circumstances in rural Galicia. Other countries also struggle with the implementation of a participatory approach. Personally I have experienced this struggle in the Netherlands, where rules and regulations often are in the way of local initiatives, and in Slovakia, where decades of communism discouraged active citizenship. From literature numerous other examples arise (Ray 2006, Mosely et.al 1999). 75

76

The next sections describe the above mentioned areas of tension in more detail. These are followed by two recommendations on how the government of Galicia could deal with land abandonment and active citizenship and on further research.

8.1 Fast policy implementationThe policy-makers wanted to establish success quickly. By taking care of almost all aspects of implementation, it was possible to found uxfors in an efficient and quick way. However, creating active citizenship takes usually much more time and patience.

The relation between participatory ideals and establishing good practices is tensed. Building social capital and establishing endogenous development are long term goals. By aiming at good practices in the short term the implementation of the uxfor-policy became rather instrumental. Physically the effects were enormous: large areas of ill-maintained forest were cleaned and replanted. The social effects are much less visible and more difficult to propagate. The relation between exogenous and endogenous developments can also be tense. Implementation of the uxfor-policy was mainly carried out from outside, by the government. Partly this exogenous influence is positive: the threshold for land owners to participate was lowered towards a minimum. At the same time citizens were not motivated to actively take part in the implementation process.

These tensions are illustrative for the transition from a clientalistic governmental system towards a participatory approach (or good governance) in policy-making in Galicia. While governmental officials were striving for the participatory ideal, they reverted to old ways of policy implementation. In these old ways governments are in charge of policy implementation via short personal linkages.

So to a certain extend the policy implementation was successful: uxfors were set-up and large areas were reforested. But raising active citizenship was hindered by this desire for rapid results. Too much focus on short term results can negatively affect the long term results.

8.2 Expectations from societyIt was difficult to involve the citizen actively. The Xunta wanted to create active citizenship, but citizens expected the government to take care of common affairs. Citizens felt this was out of their responsibilities.

Active involvement of citizens is not only a responsibility of governments. That citizens themselves take a large part in this almost goes without saying. The previous section focused on the role of the government, this section focuses on the citizen perspective.

77

As stated in the previous chapter the core of endogenous development lies at the local community. It involves a willingness of citizens to take responsibility for their region and the ability to make profit from this development. This tendency is reflected in all theoretical notions about good governance, implementation of good practices, building social capital and the formation of partnerships.

In rural Galicia this tendency was hard to notice. Most land owners felt that they were unable to take responsibility for their own and common property. Economic incentives to make the parcels profitable were absent and according to most owners common goods, such as landscape management and prevention of forest fires, belong to the governmental tasks. There exists an area of tension between what a participatory approach expects from citizens and expectations from Galicia’s citizens themselves.

Like the policy-makers, Galicia’s citizens were balancing between different governmental systems. The clientalistic system was also deeply rooted within them. They expect governments to take responsibility for common goods and to reward or punish politicians (and policy-makers) during elections, depending on the results of the actions taken (or territorial favours given).

The difference between governmental systems does not have to be contrasting. Like the participatory approach, clientalism is also a way of linking governments and citizens more directly.

The development around the uxfors shows that a change towards a participatory approach does not only demand a different attitude from governments. It also demands active involvement of citizens and willingness to take responsibility for what may used to be governmental tasks.

8.3 Participatory approach and depopulationLand abandonment and depopulation are deep-rooted problems at the Galician countryside. The uxfor-policy tries to deal with these developments. But how can active citizenship be stimulated if the largest part of the population is well over 65, and most landowners live in other regions?

The uxfor-policy is primarily created to deal with land abandonment and ill-maintenance of production forests. Factors underlying land abandonment are depopulation and ageing of the local population. These factors also make it very difficult to deal with uxfors in a participatory way. All three examined uxfors had trouble with finding all original owners. A considerable part of them was not living in the same area anymore. Other owners were too old to take part actively in decision-making. Depopulation and ageing are the largest problems facing the future of Europe’s (marginal) rural areas. A participatory approach can

78

help slowing down these processes, but one can question how sustainable these initiatives are. The original expected minimum life time of an uxfor was related to the age of the trees, from seedling until the moment they were cut. In forty years many things can change, but probably most owners will not live in the uxfors anymore, nor be taken over by other owners.

8.4 RecommendationsFrom these three conclusions two types of recommendations can be drawn. The first two conclusions are closely related, they emanate from the area of tension between the position of governments and active citizenship. From this the first recommendation evolves, which focuses on a practical level. The second recommendation aims at a scientific level and evolves from the third conclusion.

8.4.1 Participatory practicesSuccessful implementation of a participatory approach asks for dedication of both governments and citizens. Now this dedication mostly came from the policy-makers of the (previous) government. However, without active involvement of citizens it is almost impossible to deal with problems like land abandonment. With the current implementation of the uxfor-policy the Xunta attracted many owners to join. In order to make owners more aware they should be given more responsibilities, autonomy and participate in profits and costs. In this way partnerships can become more self sustaining and less dependent on governmental changes. At the same time ill-maintenance and land abandonment should become less popular options. So, besides holding a carrot, governments should also be willing to take unpopular measures to promote better maintenance of rural land (like obligations and penalties). All measures involve a long term vision instead of a focus on short term results.

8.4.2 Future researchGalicia is not the only region dealing with ageing and depopulation; many regions in the periphery of Europe are. Nonetheless, the participatory ideal is gaining ground in all of Europe, especially in these peripherical regions. Partly it might delay depopulation and related issues as land abandonment. On the other hand one can question the sustainability of participatory initiatives. Little research is done on the consequences of depopulation on this participatory ideal, or on the development of different approaches in order to deal with demographic changes in rural Europe. Possible questions for the consequences of depopulation on this participatory ideal include the following: How endogenous can a development be, if most people involved do not live in the same area? How can social capital be built if most owners only meet once a year to discuss most important issues?

79

Can partnerships help to slow down or stop the depopulation process, or should be thought of new ways of local participation and regional development? If the government is not taking care of common goods as conserving the landscape, preventing forest fires and the quality of life in rural societies, who else would?

Literature

Adolf, S. (2008). Spanje achter de schermen: een feestelijke herrijzenis van een democratie. Amsterdam: Promotheus/NRC Handelsblad.

Allmendinger, P. (2002). Planning Theory. Houndmills: Palgrave.

Ark, R. van and A. van den Brink (2002). Een nieuw sturingsmodel voor het landelijk gebied. In: Landwerk, januari 2002 (p33-38).

Batterbury, S. (2002). Evaluationg Policy Implementation: The Europeans Union’s Small and Medium Sized Enterprise Policies in Galicia and Sardina. In: Regional Studies, vol 36 (8), pp 861-876.

Bauer, R.L. (1983). Familiy and property in a Spanish Galician Community. (phd-thesis) Stanford: Stanford University.

Bauer, R.L. (2005). Economic Differentiation and the Divided Responses of Spanish Galician Farmers to Reforestation of the Commons under Franco. In: Social Science History, vol. 29(2) (p175–205).

Beunen, R. (2010). The governance of nature: how nature conservation ambitions have been dashed in planning practices. (phd-thesis) Wageningen: Wageningen University.

Buizer, M. (2008). Worlds apart: interactions between local initiatives and established policy. (phd-thesis) Wageningen: Alterra.

Boonstra, W.J. and A. van den Brink (2006). Controlled decontrolling: Involution and democratisation in Dutch rural planning. In: Polder Limits, a case study of value-conflicts on rural land use. (p72-90). (phd-thesis) Wageningen: Wageningen University.

Carreiro. P. (2001). Historia de Galicia. Vigo: A Nosa Terra.

Clarke, A.E. (2005). Situational analysis: grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications, Inc.

Lite

ratu

re

Consellería do medio rural (2009). Unidades de Xestión Forestal [accessed at: www.uxfor.info, 12 june 2009]. Santiago de Compostela: Xunta de Galicia.

Cresswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications, Inc.

Dijk, T. van (2003). Scenarios of Central European land fragmentation. In: Land Use Policy vol. 20 (p149–158).

Domínguez, M.D., A.M. Alonso, X. Simón, J.R. Maulón, G. Ramos and H. Renting (2006). Catching up with Europe, Rural Development in Spain. In: Driving rural development: Policy and Practice in seven EU Countries. (p111-144) Assen: van Gorkum.

Domínguez García, M.D. (2007). The way you do, it matters: a case study: farming economically in Galician dairy agroecosystems in the context of a cooperative. (phd-thesis). Wageningen: Wageningen University.

Edwards, B., M. Goodwin, S.Pemberton and M. Woods (2001). Partnerships, power, and scale in rural governance. In: Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, vol. 19, (p289-310).

Emans, B. (2002). Interviewen, theorie techniek en training, Groningen: Stenfert Kroese

Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter. Why social inquiry has failed and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Glaser, B.G., and A.L. Strauss (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

Goodwin, M. (1998). The governance of rural areas: some emerging research issues and agendas. In: Journal of Rural Studies, vol. 14(1), (p5-12).

Have, P. ten (2009). Etnografie, inleidende teksten met suggesties en overwegingen over kwalitatieve onderzoeksmethoden. [Accesed at: http://www2.fmg.uva.nl/emca/EGF.htm, 20 may 2009]. Amsterdam: Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Amsterdam.

Healey, P. (2006). Collaborative Planning: shaping places in a fragmented society. Houndmills: Palgrave McMillan.

Holtslag, W. and M. Meijer (2008). Zweven door het planproces: Onderzoek naar de samenhang tussen problemen en oplossingen in planprocessen en de invloed van betrokkenen hierop. (MSc-thesis) Wageningen: Wageningen University.

Jagt, P. van der, F. van Holst, J. Thomas, A. van den Brink, J. Reyniers, O. Jongeneelen, T. van Dijk, W. Timmermans, V. Daugaliene, R. Crecente, M. Ambar and Z. Flachner (2006). Far land near future.. [S.l.]: Farland

Keating, M. (2001). Rethinking the region. Culture, institutions and economic development in Cataluña and Galicia. In: European Urban and Regional Studies, vol. 8 (3), (p217-234).

López, E. (1996). Mobilidad de la tierra y dinámica de las estructuras agrarias. Madrid: Serie Estudios, MAPA.

López, E. (2000). El sector agrario gallego a las puertas del siglo XXI: Balance de sus transformaciones recientes. In: Revista Galega de Economía vol. 9(1), (p1-30). Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.

Lowe, P., C. Ray, N. Ward, D. Wood and, R. Wardwood (1999). Participation in rural development. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Centre for rural economy).

Meijer, M (2006). De boer op… Onderzoeksvoorstel voor studie over de interactie tussen verbreding van landbouw en ruimtelijke planning. (BSc. Thesis) Wageningen: Wageningen Universiteit.

Ministeries van VROM, LNV, VenW en EZ (2004). Nota Ruimte, Ruimte voor ontwikkeling. Den Haag.

Molano Martín, F.J., C. Rodríguez Rodríguez and J.M. Ponte Pintor (2007). Informe sobre a investigación de incendios forestais en Galicia. Verán 2006. Guardia Civil de Galicia. [accesed at: http://www.parlamentodegalicia.es/estaticos/Fiscalia/INFORME_GARDA_CIVIL_INCENDIOS_FORESTAIS_EN_GALICIA_2006/02-LIBRO-INVESTIGACION-PROBLEMATICA-INCENDIARIA-GALICIA-VERA.pdf, 18 april 2010]. Santiago de Compostela: Xunta de Galicia.

Muhlinghaus, S. and S. Walty (2001). Endogenous Development in Swiss Mountain Communities: Local Initiatives in Urnasch and Schamserberg. In: Mountain Research and Development, vol. 21(3), (p 236-242).

Lite

ratu

re

O’Connor, D.; H. Renting, M. Gorman, J. Kinsella (2006). Driving rural development: policy and practice in seven EU countries. Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum.

Onega, F. (2008). Land fragmentation and Land Banking in Galicia. Unpublished Manuscript.

Oostindie, H., R. van Broekhuizen, G. Brunori, J.D. van der Ploeg (2008). The Endogeneity of Rural Economies. In: Unfolding webs (p53-67). Assen: Van Gorcum.

Oostindie, H. en H. Renting (2005). The Netherlands: Multifunctionality of activities, plurality of identities and new institutional arrangements. Wageningen: Rural Sociology Group.

Picchi, A. (2002). Rural development, institutions and policy. In: Living Countrysides. Rural development processes in Europe: The state of the art. (p204-211). Doetinchem: Elsevier bedrijfsinformatie B.V.

Ploeg, J.D. van der (2003). The virtual farmer. Past, Peasantry and future of the Dutch peasantry. Assen: van Gorcum.

Ploeg, J.D. van der, and A. Long (1994). Born from within: practice and perspectives of endogenous rural development. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Ploeg, J.D. van der, and G. van Dijk (1995). Beyond modernization: the impact of endogenous rural development. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Ploeg, J.D. van der; A. Long and J. Banks (red.) (2002). Living Countrysides. Rural development processes in Europe: The state of the art. Doetinchem: Elsevier bedrijfsinformatie BV.

Ploeg, J.D. van der and T. Marsden (2008). Unfolding webs: the dynamics of regional rural development. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Ray, C. (2000). The EU LEADER Programme: Rural Development Laboratory. In: Sociologia Ruralis, vol. 40(2), (p163-171).

Ray, C. (2006). Neo-endogenous development in the EU. In: Handbook of rural studies. (p278-290). London: Sage publishers.

Remmers, G. (2004). On serendipity, rural development and innovations: the birth of new cheeses in an old mountain environment in rural Spain. In: Seeds of Transition: essays on novelty production, niches and regimes in agriculture. (p265-284). Assen: van Gorcum.

Seijo, F. (2005). The Politics of Fire: Spanish Forest Policy and Ritual Resistance in Galicia,Spain. In: Environmental Politics, vol. 14(3), (p380 – 402).

Soliva, R. (2007). Landscape stories: using ideal type narratives as a heuristic device in rural studies. In: Journal of Rural Studies, vol. 23(2007), (p67-74).

Stoker, G. (1996). Governance as theory: Five propositions. Unpublished manuscript. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde.

Tisenkopfs, T. I. Lace and I. Mierina (2006). Social capital. In: Unfolding webs (p87-110). Assen: Van Gorcum.

Valdés, C.M., and L. Sánchez, L. (2002). La transformación histórica del paisaje forstal en Galicia. [S.l.]: Ministerio de Medio Ambiente

Westholm, E. and M. Moseley (1999). Local partnerships and rural development in Europe: a literature review of practice and theory. Falun: Dalarna Research Institute.

Whelch, R. (2002). Legitimacy of rural local government in the new governance environment. In: Journal of Rural Studies, vol.18, (p443–459). Woods, M. (2005). Rural geography: processes, responses and experiences in rural restructuring. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications, Inc.

Woods, M. and M. Goodwin (2003). Applying the rural: Governance and policy in rural areas. In: Country Visions. (p245-262). Cloke (Eds). Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.

Yanow, D. (1993) The communication of policy meaning. Implementation as interpretationand text. In: Policy Science, vol. 26(1), (p41-61).

Lite

ratu

re

Acknowledgements

Now my thesis almost has come to an end. The big adventure lies behind me, and new ones ahead. Going to Galicia brought me more than just an MSc thesis. I learned to speak Spanish, met many great people, discovered the fun of blogging and moreover I got to know others ways of being human (to quote Latour). Galicia became a part of me, I can understand some of the deep affection Gallegos feel for their country.

This thesis would not have been possible without the help and support of many people. First I would like to thank Marta, who brought me to Galicia. Sin tu no estuve en Galicia. Gracias por el sitio en tu oficina y ayudarme con todo. Gracías a Sonia también, me recuerdo todos los veces que fuimos de tomar café con cariño. I would like to thank my supervisors as well, Dirk and Adri, for motivating me to write this thesis from a personal point of view and giving me the opportunity to discover this story myself. In Galicia many were helpful to me. The doors at the department of Politécnica were always open to me. Quico, Christina, Mar, Ana, Carlos, Manuel y Paul, gracías para contarme todo sobre Galicia, la tierra y el rural. Gracías para la patiencia, de introducirme a los uxfores y de ayudarme con el tesis. Without the interviewees it would not have been possible to conduct this research. First I would like to thank Xabier and Enrique, for explaining everything there is to know about the uxfor-policy carefully and answering my never-ending questions. Muchas gracías a vosotros, sin vosotros no era posible de conducir este investigacíon. Gracías de introducirme a todos los otros. Gracías a Suso y Luís tambíen. I also would like to thank Olga, Ovidio, Emilio and Carlos, for showing me the uxfors and introducing me into the real Galician life. Olga, Ovidio, Emilio y Carlos: Muchas gracías a vosotros tambíen; para presentarme los uxfores y tu vida familiar. Quería desear vosotros (y los uxfores) el mejor para el futuro. Thanks to my family and friends too. Tom, I’m happy that you could save the lay-out. Finally, I would like to thank Mathijs for letting me go ;-) and supporting me whenever needed, not least for reading every chapter of this thesis again and again.

Ack

now

ledg

emen

ts

Summary

This research is about the emergence of participatory approaches in spatial policy-making in rural Galicia. It involves a personal search for how spatial policy-making and active involvement of citizens was shaped in Galicia. The personal interests and background of the researcher led to the following research scope:

To study the emergence of a participatory approach and the role governments and citizens play in it, in the social context of spatial policy-making in rural Galicia.

This research is set up from a social constructivist perspective. The different viewpoints and interpretations of stakeholder were taken as a starting position. Within this perspective an ethnographic approach was the main research strategy. Interviews, observations and personal interests have been guiding for further data gathering and development of this research.

The social context of spatial policy-making in rural Galicia, is dominated by two developments. The first development is land abandonment. Galicia counts many small land owners, with small and fragmented properties. Owning land is very important for most Galicians. However, most Galicians are (due to different circumstances) neither able nor willing to manage their parcels, nor sell their parcels. This leads to the current situation in which twenty five percent of the land in Galicia is abandoned. The second development involves EU-policies that gained ground in the 1980s. In this period forestation was highly promoted. Many land owners decided to afforest their small parcels with EU-subsidies. Most of these parcels are, however, ill-managed and too small for efficient management. The combination of land abandonment and ill-maintened forests led to a high number of forest fires and a non-competetive agricultural sector.

These developments and the scope of research led to the uxfor-policy . The uxfor-policy is the first spatial policy set-up from a bottom-up perspective in Galicia. An uxfor is an area in which forested parcels are managed collectively, according to one production plan. The policy-makers who shaped the uxfor-policy considered it to be important to actively involve owners of these parcels during the implementation process. Since the participatory practices are not wide-spread in Galicia, policy-makers focussed on establishing good practices

Visiting the three uxfors showed a different picture, then the policymakers pointed out. In the first (embedded) case (Chantada) it was the representative that actively promoted the policy. Su

mm

ary

She held close contacts with the province of Lugo (responsible for direct implementation), and explained that it was the government that took care of everything, from costs to administration. The other owners were not actively involved. Their participation consisted of signing neccesary papers and coming to meetings.

In the second uxfor (Fonsagarada), the initiative to manage their property collectively came from the owners themselves. Nonetheless, also here the two representatives took most decisions, because most owners were too old or did not live close-by anymore. The government again arranged all practical affairs.

The third uxfor (O Incio) showed similar practices. Most owners considered it to be impossible for them to manage the collective property and their private parcels themselves. According to them taking care of common goods (as landscape management and prevention of forest fires) was a task of the government. Economical incentives to manage the parcels themselves lacked.

The implementation of the uxfor-policy was affected by recent elections. The new government decided to put the implementation process on hold until further notice. This deadlock sharpened the positions of the stakeholders. Strengths and weaknesses of the policy were uncovered that otherwise would have remained invisible. The stakeholders reacted in different ways; the representative of Chantada is working on an action group, in Fonsagarada the representatives are working on ways to continue without governmental support and in O Incio the uxfor came to a total standstill.

Literature on the changing role of government towards a participatory approach and what this entails for the relationship between governments and citizens, was used to analyse the impact of the uxfor-policy on the social context of spatial policy-making in Galicia. From this analysis the following conclusion can be drawn:

By studying the implementation of the uxfor-policy it became clear that the Xunta was struggling with the participatory ideal. The Xunta is balancing between different governmental approaches. On the one hand are the old, clientalistic, ways of policy making in which governments are in charge and take care of everything. On the other hand there is the new participatory approach that the Xunta aimed for when implementing the uxfor-policy. While looking for a balance, several areas of tensions emerged:

- The policy-makers wanted to establish success quickly. By taking care of almost all aspects of implementation, it was possible to found uxfors in an efficient and quick way. However, creating active citizenship usually takes much more time and patience.

- It was difficult to involve the citizen actively. The Xunta wanted to create active citizenship, but citizens expected the government to take care of common affairs. Citizens felt this was out of their responsibilities.

- Land abandonment and depopulation are deep-rooted problems at the Galician countryside. The uxfor-policy tried to deal with these developments. But how can active citizenship be stimulated if the largest part of the population is well over 65, and most landowners live in other regions?

These conclusions hold close relations with other parts of Europe. There as well, the participatory approach is gaining ground and are governments and citizens struggling with its implementation (although in different ways, depending on the social context). Depopulation and land abandonment also prevail in other marginal rural areas.

From the conclusions two recommendations for planning practice in Galicia and further research can be derived:

- Active citizenship demands a responsible attitude of both citizens and governments. By focussing more on raising citizen responsibility, also by unpopular measures, partnerships like uxfors can become more sustainable.

- Depopulation and land abandonment can undermine participatory policy implementation. More research can be conducted after the influence of these developments.

Sum

mar

y

Resumen

Esta investigación es sobre la aparición de una estrategia participativa en la política espacial de la Galicia rural. Se trata de una búsqueda personal de formulación de políticas y la participación activa de los ciudadanos en Galicia. Los intereses personales y los antecedentes de la investigadora llevaron al ámbito de investigación siguiente:

Estudiar la aparición de una estrategia de participación y el papel que los gobiernos y los ciudadanos juegan en ella, en el contexto social del medio rural de Galicia.

Esta investigación se configura desde una perspectiva constructivista social. Los diferentes puntos de vista e interpretaciones de las personas afectadas fueron la base de investigación. Dentro de esta perspectiva un enfoque etnográfico fue la estrategia principal de la investigación. Las entrevistas y observaciones han sido rectores de recogida de datos y del desarrollo de esta investigación.

El medio rural de Galicia está dominado por dos sucesos. El primer es el abandono de tierras. Galicia cuenta muchos pequeños propietarios, con propiedades pequeñas y fragmentadas. Tener propiedad es muy importante para la mayoría de los gallegos. Aún, la mayoría de los gallegos (debido a diferentes circunstancias) no podrá ni querrá gestionar o vender sus parcelas. Por eso ahora 25% de la tierra en Galicia está abandonada. El segundo desarrollo se trata de las políticas de UE, que ganaron terreno en la década de 1980. En este período forestación fue muy promovida. Muchos propietarios decidieron de forestar sus pequeñas parcelas con los subsidios de la UE. La mayoría de estas parcelas son mal gestionada, y demasiado pequeña para una gestión eficaz. La combinación de abandono de tierras y forestales gestionados malos condujo a incendios forestales y un agricultura non competitivo.

Estos sucesos y el ámbito de la investigación llevan a los uxfores. Uxfor es la primera medida en Galicia de una perspectiva de bottom-up. Un uxfor es una unidad de gestión forestal colectiva, de acuerdo con un plan de producción. Los responsables del gobierno consideren que la participación activa de los propietarios era importante. Dado que las prácticas participativas no son muy extendida en Galicia, los responsables políticos se primer centraron en el establecimiento de buenas prácticas

Visitar los tres uxfores mostró una imagen diferente. En el primero caso (Chantada) la persona de contacta promovió activamente la política. Mantuvo estrechos contactos con la provincia de Lugo (responsable por la realización directa), y explicó que era el gobierno que se encargó de todo, desde los costos de la administración. Los otros propietarios no Re

sum

en

participaron activamente. Su participación consistió en firmar los papeles necesarios y ir a las reuniones.

En el segundo uxfor (Fonsagarada), la iniciativa para gestionar su propiedad colectiva vino de los propios propietarios. Sin embargo, también aquí los dos personas de contacto tomaron la mayoría de las decisiones, porque la mayoría de los propietarios eran demasiado viejos o que no viven en la misma parroquia. El gobierno organizó también todos los asuntos prácticos.

La tercera uxfor (O Incio) mostró prácticas similares. La mayoría de los propietarios consideran que es imposible para ellos para gestionar la propiedad colectiva y sus parcelas propios. Según ellos, el cuidado de los intereses públicos (como la gestión del paisaje y la prevención de los incendios forestales) es una tarea del gobierno. Se faltaban incentivos económicos para gestionar las parcelas propias.

La aplicación de la uxfor se vio afectada por las recientes elecciones. El nuevo gobierno decidió poner el proceso de aplicación en suspenso hasta nuevo aviso. Los interesados reaccionaron de diferentes maneras; el representante de Chantada está trabajando a un grupo de acción, en Fonsagarada los representantes buscán maneras para continuar sin apoyo de gobierno y en O Incio la uxfor se paralizó total.

La literatura sobre la estrategia participativa y que lo significa para la relación entre los gobiernos y los ciudadanos, se utilizó para analizar el impacto de la uxfor en el medio rural de Galicia. A partir de este análisis de se pueden sacar las siguientes conclusiones:

Mediante el estudio de la aplicación de los uxfores se hizo evidente que la Xunta tenía problemas con el ideal participativo. La Xunta es el equilibrio entre las diferentes estrategias de política. Por un lado hay las viejas, clientelistas, estrategias en que los gobiernos están en cargo de todo. Por otro lado hay la nueva estrategia participativa que la Xunta referidas a de aplicar la uxfor. Mientras buscan un equilibrio, varias zonas de tensiones surgieron:

- Los responsables políticos querían establecer el éxito rápidamente. Al cuidar de casi todos los aspectos de la aplicación, fue posible realizar los uxfores en un manera rápida y eficaz. Aún, la creación de una ciudadanía activa por lo general toma más tiempo y paciencia.

- Era difícil de hacer participar los ciudadanos de un manera activa. La Xunta quería crear una ciudadanía activa, pero los ciudadanos esperan el gobierno de cuidar de todos los intereses públicos. Los ciudadanos sintieron que esto no fuera de sus responsabilidades.

- Abandono de las tierras y la despoblación son grandes problemas en el campo gallego. Los uxfores eran una medida de tratar estos problemas. Pero, ¿cómo puede

ser estimulado la ciudadanía activa, si la mayor parte de la población es de más de 65 años, y la mayoría de los propietarios viven en otras regiones?

Estas conclusiones tienen una estrecha relación con otras partes de Europa. La estrategia participativa está ganando terreno y otros gobiernos y los ciudadanos tienen también problemas con su aplicación (aunque de maneras diferentes, dependiendo del contexto social). La despoblación y el abandono de la tierra también existen en muchas otras zonas rurales marginales.

De las conclusiones pudieran derivarse dos recomendaciones para la práctica de la planificación en Galicia y otros estudios científicos:

- La ciudadanía activa exige una actitud responsable de los ciudadanos y los gobiernos. Al centrarse más en aumentar la responsabilidad de los ciudadanos, también por medidas impopulares, las asociaciones como uxfores pueden llegar a ser más sostenible.

- La despoblación y el abandono de las tierras pueden paralizar la aplicación de estrategias participativas. Más investigación puede llevarse a cabo después de la influencia de estos desarrollos.

Resu

men

Ann

ex 1

Inte

rvie

wee

sch

eme

Aldea – hamlet

Consellería – provincial policy department (e.g. consellería de montes y industrias forestales: department of forestry)

Marcador – a person who marks and appropiates all unclaimed (and thus common) trees illegally (see case of Fonsagarada).

Minifundio – small self-sustaining farm

Monte – literary hill; but mostly a close-by agricultural/woodland is meant (like field). In some cases monte is used to refer to common property, belonging to a village or parroquía.

Nucleo – literary nucleus; like aldea, a small concentration of a few dwellings at the countryside.

Parroquía – literary parish; spatial entity within a municipality.

Propietarios – owners.

Setas – fungus (mushrooms)

Souto – chestnut grove

Uxfor – unidad de xestíon forestal; forest management unit

Uxfor-policy – overall policy concerned with implementation of forest management units: uxfors.

Vecino – literary neighbour; though mostly all inhabitants of a parroquía are meant.

Xunta – regional government of GaliciaA

nnex

2 E

xpla

natr

ory

wor

d lis

t

Planning realities in Galicia – the coming into being of a participatory approach

Abstract1

Galicia is an autonomic peripheral region in the north-west of Spain. Galicia copes with many problems on the countryside, like land abandonment and a decline of rural population. It might therefore not be the first region that comes to the mind when discussing sustainable strategies for metropolitan landscapes. However the problems of the countryside have an impact on the urban areas, where most young people go because of better economic perspectives. This paper deals with four different themes that illustrate the spatial situation in Galicia, the policy making process and how is dealt with new, more participatory strategies. Spatial planning is not embedded in policy making procedures as in other parts of (northern) Europe, but executed through informal and political networks. On the one hand this leads to a flexible, easy accessible and dynamic approach. On the other hand developments are not always structured and policy making processes can be non-transparent. For my master thesis in spatial planning I spent five months in Galicia. The themes are partly written from my own experiences, completed with broader perspectives from literature and its implications for more urbanised areas.

Key words: Galicia, planning processes, participatory approach, urban expansion plans IntroductionGalicia is an autonomous region2 in the upper north west corner of Spain (see figure 1), just above Portugal. Hidden behind the Cantabrian Mountains, Galicia was for a long time isolated from other parts of Spain. Though the region is relatively unknown, it can be very interesting to study it’s culture, ways of policy making and development over time. They show another way of policy making, but also the differences tell more about the ways of policymaking I was familiar with and my own background. For me the contrasts with my own country (the Netherlands) were surprising every day.

1 Paper presented at International Student Conference, Copenhagen (ESPI), published as article in: TOPOS 2009 (2)2 Spain is divided in 17 autonomous regions, or Comunidades Autónomas. These regions are established in the constitution formed in 1978, after the Franco regime. All autonomous regions have their own parliament and government, and have large legal and administrative powers. For Galicia this government is the Xunta. A

nnex

3 A

rticl

e: P

lann

ing

real

ities

in G

alic

ia

For my master thesis on participatory processes in policy making in rural Galicia, I lived almost five months in Lugo, a city in Galicia’s inland (see figure 2). Although my research was mainly focused on rural Galicia (and more particularly on the collective management of private production forests), this was enough time to become familiar with the planning system in general and more urban issues specifically. In this paper these two topics will play a central role. They will be illustrated with four different themes (the meaning of property, everything is politics, a new kind of policy, and, getting things done).

These four themes will illustrate the spatial situation in Galicia, the policy making process and how is dealt with new, more participatory strategies. The information is derived from my own experiences, completed with broader perspectives from literature and interviews I conducted.

Wandering through the city centre / the meaning of propertyDuring the first weekends I was in Lugo I wandered a lot through the city centre. Looking down from the roman wall, which encircles the centre, is a good way of getting an overview of the city. One of the first things that struck to my eye were the many abandoned houses (see figure 3). In every street there are several houses that are falling to pieces, that are inaccessible and overgrown with weeds. Later I discovered this did not only occur in Lugo, but also in other cities, like A Coruña and Vigo.

For me this was a large contrast with the Netherlands, where every square meter is used. Unoccupied dwellings are either renovated, or demolished for urban renewal or squatted. My first impression was that it had to do with the absence of scarcity of arable land, as new building projects popped up everywhere in the urban rural fringe. Later it became clear to me that the issue of abandoned houses is more complex and deep-rooted within Galician society. The absence of spatial scarcity is not one of the main drivers for the current situation. Ground prices are relatively high in Galicia, as in the rest of Spain. This has to do with a high level of speculation by building companies. How speculation can exist when almost a quarter of the total area of Galicia is abandoned, could best be explained from a more rural perspective.

The background of the problems is in both rural and urban areas more or less the same. The difference is that in rural areas most Gallegos consider land abandonment as a problem, while in city centres abandoned houses are regarded as a part of the city, something that just happens (Varela García et. al. 2006). On the countryside land abandonment leads to higher risks for forest fires3 (in 2006 almost 20% of Galicia was burned) and a non-competitive

3 Higher forest fi re risks are caused by shrubs and bushes growing unrestrained on aban- Higher forest fire risks are caused by shrubs and bushes growing unrestrained on aban-doned parcels. Biomass accumulates during spring (the wet season) and catches fire easily in autumn (the dry season).

agricultural sector 4, which make land abandonment together with depopulation a rather big problem (Dominguez García 2007).

Land abandonment has a wide range of causes. One of the most prevailing is the demobilisation of the land market (Domínguez García 2007). In a mobile land market selling and purchasing of land is a smooth process. In Galicia, having property used to be something beyond reach for most people. About a century ago this changed; many farmers could take over the land they had always worked on. Children and grandchildren of these farmers inherited and divided the land equally. Now Galicia has many land owners; about half of the population owns a piece of land somewhere. Despite the high number of owners, having property is still regarded as something special, even though most landowners simply own land. To “simply own land” implies that most owners do not live at their property, nor do they use the land for (agricultural) production. Because of low costs it is possible to own land, and leave it more or less abandoned. Most owners do not want to sell their land, they prefer to keep it as a capital resource for economically bad times, or hope that its value increases because of urban expansion or forestation. Because of the non-existence of effective town and country planning, all rural areas can be re-allocated as urban or forestry areas at any time. This reinforces the hope of most owners for a value increase of their land in the near future (Lopez 1996, 2000). It also increases the ground price (land is ‘overestimated’) and leads to a high rate of speculation.

These issues do not only apply for the rural areas, but also in the urban rural fringe (Varela García et. al. 2006). Here chances for urban expansion are even higher, and the mobilisation of the land market even lower. In city centres things are different, but still the same mechanisms can be recognized. Most of the abandoned houses do not belong to one person, but to a whole family. These families inherited the houses from their ancestors, but do not actively live there. A number of options arise: the house could be sold to a project developer for new housing development, one family member could to live in it in the future, or it could be renovated and sold. Since the costs of owning are low and mortgages are often paid off, indecision usually remains. Like in rural areas, families just own houses hope for a value increase. Inheritance conflicts can take years and in meanwhile the house decays.

Land abandonment on the countryside is directly related to developments in the urban rural fringe. Most (young) people who left the countryside moved to the bigger cities of Galicia. (see figure 4 for population density). The last decades cities expanded enormously. (Domínguez García 2007). This trend is still continuing. Young people do not foresee a future at the countryside. A thriving example of this trend is a woman (daughter of a farmers woman) I 4 A non-competitive agricultural sector is the result of the inability of most farmers to expand their farms (surfaces). Ground prices are high, and money often lacks because of previous investments (milk quota, modern equipment/machinery). A

nnex

3 A

rticl

e: P

lann

ing

real

ities

in G

alic

ia

met during one of the interviews. She did not want to live the life of her mother, working at a minifundio (a small self-sufficient farm). As soon as she had the chance she started to study English in the city. After that she found herself a job in Vigo as an English teacher, bought an apartment, and is determined never to return to the countryside. Many young people do not want to continue the hard working life of their parents at the countryside. They look for a better future, with a higher income. As written before, clear spatial policies are often absent. Urban expansion is hardly fine-tuned with other developments (like industry, infrastructure or physical aspects of terrain). Together with a high demand for housing and an immobile land market these circumstances determine the space for manoeuvre/policy making in Galicia. In later sections these factors will be discussed in more detail.

Everything is politicsOne of the first lessons I learned, while investigating policy-making processes, is that in Galicia (like in all southern European country(parts)) everything is politics. Discussing the local newspapers during coffee breaks, my colleagues showed me that most articles have to do with politics in some way, whether it is about the construction of a new highway, agricultural development or sports. Also in university life regional politics is present. The student and employee council represent the different political factions (mainly the socialist, nationalist and conservativist party). Moreover all civil servants in charge are replaced when a new coalition is elected, also the executive person of the university and all other government related organisations. This replacement has a large impact on the shaping of policy as well as the implementation of policy. Politics and policymaking are closely related. In Spanish (and Galician) language there does not exist a difference between politics and policy, for both the word política is used. On the one hand this leads to a high level democratisation. Civil servants do not form a power on their own, but are ideologically related to the policy they are developing. On the other hand, a lot of political friends are needed before a new policy can be executed. This does not always lead to rational5 and transparent decisions.

Clientalism is present in many governance systems, not only in southern (European) countries. Healey (2006) describes clientalism as a system that involves an interactive relationship between politicians and government officials, through social networks of the politicians and officials. These social networks are used for allocating and distributing resources, mostly in a non-transparent way. Resources could be distributed for personal gains (e.g. a befriended construction developer could be tolerated illegal building, in exchange of political support). In Galicia however most favours are not executed for personal good, resources are mostly distributed along political lines, and for the greater good of a certain region (Batterbury 2002, Keating 2001). In her paper Sarah Batterbury names a technology 5 With a rational decision is meant that all reasonable alternatives are taken into account and the most optimal, given the circumstances, alternative is chosen. (Healey, quoted in Allmend-inger 2002).

park, to be located in Orense, one of the main inland towns. According to many local actors, this park could better be located in Vigo or A Coruña, where the universities are located and technological knowledge is available. Nonetheless, since the minister is from Orense, the park was allocated in Orense. For Orense this park is very important, it could employ a lot of persons and attracts more highly developed industries. Local politicians lobbied for this science park and got it, even though the location is sub-optimal. In the same way political lines are used for the allocation of housing, infrastructure and implementation of new spatial policies.

Also in the project I studied (UXFOR, unidades de xestíon forestal, collective management of production forests) I saw a close relation between the implementation of policy and political networks. Since the democratization of Spain in 1981 the Partido Popular (PP, the conservatives party) won almost every regional election. In 2005 this changed, after a series of political blunders (with indecision around the oil-spill of the Prestige as low point) the socialist (PSOE) and nationalist party (BNG) gained majority of votes for the first time and governed together for four years. In this period many things changed. Instead of playing a central role in decision making they tried to decentralize policy making. The UXFOR policy emanates from this ideological change. Even though government officials tried to enrol locals as much as possible, most contact persons of collective managed forests were still closely related to either the socialist or nationalist party. The advantage was that these contact persons put a lot of effort in making the project a success. Nevertheless it was still hard to measure whether these projects and resources (like subsidy and technical support) that came with them were distributed evenly, or remained within socialist and nationalist lines. During the latest elections (2009) the PP regained majority of votes. For the UXFOR’s this meant a sudden break. All policies were frozen until the new government has decided how they like to continue. Although most executing officials were replaced, at the background UXFORs remained active and some actions (e.g. distribution of subsidies) were taken in retrospective.

Besides in-effective implementation of policy it must be noted that clientalism also results in more direct linkages between local actors and government, and a higher level of political commitment. To quote Patsy Healy (2006, p232): “In the context of the efforts to make government more responsive and collaborative with business and citizens, however, it should not be forgotten that clientalism has long been a way of linking government and citizen in a direct way”.

A new kind of policy During their governing period, the socialist and nationalist party decided to develop policy in a more participatory way. They also made an effort in developing a more spatial oriented and integrated kind of policy. Nowadays many plans suffer from a lack of coordination. Nevertheless this new policy-direction is not purely a socialist/nationalist idea. The European A

nnex

3 A

rticl

e: P

lann

ing

real

ities

in G

alic

ia

Union invests a lot of money in Galicia. For their subsidy programs, inclusion of local stakeholders becomes more and more a preliminarily condition. The Local Action Groups of the Leader-program are a good example of this (Keating 2001). Local Action Groups try to promote rural development at a local level. In such groups stakeholders of all sector must be represented.

One of the employees of the Xunta I interviewed in Galicia was working on redefining spatial policy making. She explained that the there is a long way to go before a more coordinated spatial policy could be established. First of all many municipalities (concellos) do not have urban plans, or existing urban plans are not updated (see figure 5). Secondly, many sectoral policies are not integrated in an overall policy. The employee of the Xunta named an example in which urban expansion and new infrastructure were planned separately. First the new residential area was built, but the allocation plan was not updated to the new situation. Later on a new infrastructural plan was developed, but it did not take the residential area in account. One of the main roads was located at the same place where apartment buildings were already built. The Xunta’s first priority is to deal with issues regarding a lack coordination between different policies. The Xunta wishes to do this by making information and master plans more accessible for all civil servants involved. In consequence the Xunta wishes to inform local citizens better about urban plans in their direct environment. Information should not only become more accessible for policy makers, but also for local citizens. It is a twofold process.

Currently local citizens do not have possibilities to participate in planning procedures. Information about urban plans is often inaccessible for others than government officials, and citizens are only confronted with a new plan when implementation starts. In order to change this, master plans should be published online or be available at the town hall. In this manner local citizens do have the opportunity to express their opinions about land use changes, and object if necessary. Although a more participatory approach in Galicia is still in an initial phase, better and more accessible information is a start.

Also on other terrains a more participatory approach is developing. The UXFOR-policy is the first bottom-up type of policy developed in Galicia. For problems like land abandonment and ill-management of production forests, top-down policies only did not seem to be sufficient. By actively involving owners of small, non-productive parcels it becomes possible to manage all parcels together, as one large piece of land. In this way different problems could be tackled at the same time: forestry becomes more profitable, environmental issues like forest fires are reduced and local citizens are actively involved regarding their environment. Yet there is a long way to go. Not only for the Xunta, but also for the citizens who are not really used to take part in the policymaking process (Leon-Alfonso and Ferrín Perreira 2007). For a long time this used to be the terrain of government officials and their political

(social) network. Like with the abandoned houses in the city centres, people do not really seem to be actively involved. They have their own every day concerns and sometimes a very strong opinion about what should be done, but they do not see it as their task to change things. “Many people see the Xunta as a mama, this need to change”, as one of the interviewees (an employee of the Xunta) said. In the UXFOR project I saw the Xunta also behave like a “mama”. Local owners could join meetings to express their opinion about the future exploitation of their production forest, but in fact they just gave a mandate to the Xunta. No discussion was going on. Also to get more owners involved the government took a large part of the costs (if not all) for their account. In my opinion this made owners only less actively involved. They joined because they assumed it couldn’t get worse, but also did not expect to make money. There was no direct stimulus to make owners more involved.

Although the example above was about rural Galicia, I do think parallels can be drawn with more urban areas. If there is no stimulus for gathering information about e.g. urban expansion plans I do not think people are willing to do this and contribute (or object) actively to these plans. Just making information more accessible will not be enough (after Healey 2006).

Getting thing doneWhat surprised me mostly about policy making in Galicia was the way policies were implemented and how official guidelines were dealt with. A Spanish friend said to me: “the best thing I like about the Netherlands is the sky, the only thing that is not planned.” During a lecture I attended one student once asked me what, in my opinion, was the most significant difference between the two countries. I answered that in the Netherlands everything is so organized and bounded by regulations that being innovative is almost impossible. In Galicia all these regulations seem to be absent; people had more freedom in running their business and did not have to spend so much time on paperwork. Well, the teacher answered, in Galicia we do have these regulations as well, only nobody lives up to them. For me this was an eye-opener. I did not know about the large number of sectoral plans at that moment. I only saw the abandoned houses, creativly parked cars and vegetable gardens emerging everywhere in the city (sometimes even with pig sheds, something unimaginable in the Netherlands).

In the above sections the lack of involvement of citizens and coordination between different policies is discussed. This is one side of the story. In practice things turned to work out quiet differently. Plans were not regarded as blueprints, but as a procedure that needs to be done. If reality turned out to be different than the plan, people dealt with it, instead of returning to the drawing table. Flexibility is everywhere. When the urban and infrastructure plan turned out to be incompatible, as mentioned in the third part of this paper, there was no policy crisis (well maybe some inconvenience). The plans were just put away in their drawers and A

nnex

3 A

rticl

e: P

lann

ing

real

ities

in G

alic

ia

Ann

ex 3

Arti

cle:

pla

nnin

g re

aliti

es in

Gal

icia

people continued with what they were doing already: building a new urban expansion area.

This does, however, often lead to a large gap between what is done, what needs to be done and the policy that is developed. On the one hand flexibility can be regarded as a positive thing. On the other hand it does not always lead to effective policies. Not every action is well thought of and a lot of effort is wasted if policies are not really taken seriously after developing them. Growing pressure for urban expansion in the urban rural fringe makes flexible planning less feasible (Vazquez Barquero 2006). E.g. increasing mobility asks for more strategic infrastructural plans, but also for more efficient allocation of industrial or commercial areas.

ConclusionHistorically policy making processes in Galicia tend to be very sectoral and take place within the political system. Absence of integration of different sectors (like rural, water, environmental, infrastructural, housing, economic policies), the scattering of many policy making agencies, and formation of policies mainly within political systems, make clear and effective policy-making almost impossible. On the other hand politicians and policy makers also always have been able to deal with unforeseen situations. In Galicia bureaucracy did not immediately lead to fixed inflexible policy making. Yet a better coordination between different policies is evolving. Also more participatory strategies are coming into being, but are in a very preliminary phase. Still a lot needs to be done. Especially in more urban areas the backlog in spatial policy is apparent. By actively involving citizens and better coordination I believe future plans could be more effective. However I also hope Galicia does not loose its flexibility in dealing with spatial policy making.

Acknowledgements For this paper I would like to thank all people I interviewed and met during my stay in Galicia, for their patience and willingness in informing me about almost everything going on in Galicia.

ReferencesAllmendinger, P. (2002). Planning Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Batterbury, S. (2002). Evaluationg Policy Implementation: The Europeans Union’s Small and Medium Sized Enterprise Policies in Galicia and Sardina. In: Regional Studies, vol 36 (8), pp 861-876. Carfax Publishing.

Domínguez García, M.D. (2007). The way you do, it matters. Wageningen: Wageningen University.

Healey , P. (2006). Collaborative planning. Shaping places in fragmented societies. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Keating, M. (2001). Rethinking the region. Culture, institutions and economic development in Cataluña and Galicia. In: European Urban and Regional Studies, vol. 8 (3), pp 217-234. London: SAGE publications.

Leon-Alfonso, S. and M. Ferrín Perreira (2007). Whom make Galician citizens responsible for the attribution of responsibilities on public policies in a multilevel system? Santiago de Compostela: Escola Galega de Administración Pública. [accessed at: http://egap.xunta.es/fich/lineas/lineaInves26.pdf, 6-11 2009]

López, E. (1996). Mobilidad de la tierra y dinámica de las estructuras agrarias. Madrid: Serie Estudios, MAPA.

López, E. (2000). El sector agrario gallego a las puertas del siglo XXI: Balance de sus transformaciones recientes. In: Revista Galega de Economía juno año/vol 9, número 001, pp1-30. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.

Varela García, A., A. Oyonarte Castro and G. Martínez Crespo (2006). Vulnarable urbana reas and marginal establishments in the seven main Galician cities: the case of the vulnerable district of the Portiño (A Coruña). Paper for 42nd ISoCarp Congress 2006.

Vazquez Barquero, A. (2006). Urban Development in Peripheral Regions of the New Europe: The Case of Vigo in Galicia. In: European Planning Studies, vol 14 (6), pp 753-772. Routledge.

Ann

ex 3

Arti

cle:

Pla

nnin

g re

aliti

es in

Gal

icia

Author: Marlies Meijermarliesmeijer25@hotmail.com