Rural Territorial Bottom-up Model Development Constraints

XIII World Congress of Rural Sociology “The New Rural World: from Crises to Opportunities 2012, Lisbon, Portugal | July 29 to August 4 “The great decisions of human life have as a rule far more to do with the instincts and other mysterious unconscious factors than with conscious will and well-meaning reasonableness.” (C.G. Jung) Constraints of the Rural Territorial Bottom-up Model Development: a comparative analysis between The Marche Region in Italy and The Coto Brus Region in Costa Rica. Authors: Matteo Belletti1, Rafael Evelio Granados Carvajal2, Luis Fernando Fernandez Alvarado3 and Ricardo Rodriguez Barquero2 Università Politecnica delle Marche, Italy1 Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica2 Universidad de Costa Rica3 m.belletti@univpm.it WG 7 – Rural Dynamics and Policy Innovation: Latin America in Comparative Perspective Tuesday 2th August, 2012

Inductive structure • Problems: poverty and environmental change • Strategy: bottom-up design of policies • Bottom-up psychology • Bottom-up economy and organization • Bottom-up constraints Latin America Marche, Italy Coto Brus, Costa Rica Europe

This paper is based on an in-depth interview undertaken by me with Mr. Ugo Sansonetti, the leader of the italian pioneers of Coto Brus, Costa Rica (1952-1962) • Today, Ugo Sansonetti is 94 years old, he lives in Rome and perhaps is the last Italian pioneer still living. As his brothers Vito and Giulio Cesare, he is an honorary citizen of Costa Rica. • Despite his age, Ugo Sansonetti continues to write and is a competitive masters athlete. He has won several masters athletics competitions, and he is the current world record holder in the M90 800 meters outdoor, M90 60 meters, M85 200 meters and M90 400 meters, indoor. Famous for his sprightly athletic appearance in a Coca Cola and for being the first octogenarian in zero gravity; • His writings include Coto Brus, Là dove gli alberi sorreggevano il cielo (translated=Coto Brus, there, where the trees prop-up the sky, Scorpione Publishers, 2000). • In the seventies he directed and helped to save a European frozen foods manufacturer that would later become known as Findus. • In 1991 he was appointed Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic and in 2006 received the Star of Merit for his work.

Poverty and Environmental Change

Relative poverty in Marche (%) Source: elaboration on ISTAT database

Absolute poverty in Marche (%) Source: elaboration on ISTAT database

In Marche, one of the richest regions, 16.8% of the population risks poverty, in Italy 24.7% (Eurostat, 2009) ...and today? ...Suspense stories

Water scarcity in Marche, Italy -12.3% rainfall (1961-2006) +1Ctemperature (1961-2006) Frequency of drought events (%) extremely severely severely moderate 1961-1980 1981-2000 2001-2007

Coto Brus, Costa Rica • Coto Brus is a Canton of The Brunca Region that has a surface of 9.528 km2, nearly the same of Marche Region; Coto Brus Canton has a surface area of 933.9 km2 of which 33% is UAA. • Moreover the maps of Costa Rica and Central Italy (Marche + Toscana + Umbria + Emilia Romagna + Lazio + Abruzzo) are same as superimposable • The Brunca Region is one of the poorest regions of the country, with 39% of the population living in poverty • 37% of whom live in condition of absolute poverty • In Coto Brus, 91.3% of the population live in rural areas, and 60.4% live off the land. Coffee being the bases of the local agricultural economy • The standard of education is low: 51% of the population hasn’t completed secondary school. • The Canton of Coto Brus is in the lowest quintile of national social development • Notwithstanding the above the HDI improved from 0.653 to 0.716 over the period 2005-2009 (PNUD, 2011)

The comparative analysis how • Based on three contexts: • The MarcheRegion, Italy . • The Canton of Coto Brus (Brunca Region) today, Costa Rica; • Coto Brus at the beginning: 1951, start of the incredible adventure of a small group of Italian pioneers who on invitation and concession of Costa Rica’s Government of Otilio Ulate, penetrated into the Coto Brus wild forest and in 10 years created the prosperous and peaceful Italo–Costa Rican society of San Vito del Rio Java.

The comparative analysiswhy • The origin of the Coto Brus colonization is a forgotten or unknown example knowledge of bottom-up rural-territorial development; • More: we will try to define it as model of endogenous regional development • The comparison is between a rich Italian, and European, region (Marche) where the rate of poverty is rapidly increasing and environmental change is becoming significant, and a Costa Rican Region (Region Brunca, Coto Brus) that is starting to address poverty through a decentralised policy and a bottom-up territorial approach made possible thanks to the National Law of Decentralization n. 8801/2010. • The European Union already has a decentralized and regional policy for rural development but it doesn’t seem to lead to significant results, at least not in Italy. • Moreover, we explored – at regional level - the essence of a very “famous” italian grassroots movement politically bottom-up oriented: the GAS network (Solidarity Purchasing Group network) • Is the GAS movement a really bottom-up driven organization?

Hypothesis:the concepts of the bottom-up and top-down approach to Rural Territorial Development (RTD) are not always well defined in the literature.

Thesis: the study case of the Coto Brus beginning is a model of bottom-up RTD:both from a psychological, economic, and an organizational perspective;

Methods: the study case of the Coto Brus serves as an anchor to the current analysis of the two study cases that are empirically very different, theoretically linked together if the question is:what about RTD in the XXI Century?

Distinguishing:bottom-up psychology,bottom-up organization,bottom-up economy

Confusing top-down and bottom-up • When cognitive processing based on vague sensorial input utilises external information, including directed attention, for goal orientation we call this a top-down approach (Ramskov, 2008). • Whereas if the elaboration is based on a stimulus presented long and clearly enough, and there is a progression from the individual to the whole, we call this a bottom-up approach (Ramskov, 2008). • While from an organizational point of view a bottom-up approach can be defined as a spontaneous organizational dynamic that is self motivated, self planned and self managed • Open question1: What we mean by the term “bottom-up economy?” • Open question2: Is the concept “bottom-up economy” a political concept, a scientific one or both?

Top-down or bottom-up? • Coto Brus and Marche today: Costa Rican academics are understandably pushing for political change towards a decentralized bottom-up regional rural territorial policy. Thus the question is: • when does the political decentralization corresponds to a real bottom-up approach to development planning? • As seen in the Marche Region, both the EU regional policy (LEADER+) and the grassroots movement investigated (GAS, Solidarity Purchasing Groups) are not easily definable as bottom-up policy dynamics, • notwithstanding the many simple and convenient academic speculations (at least in Italy) on what is bottom-up and what isn’t and how and why it works.

Bottom-up in Marche, Italy: the EU LEADER+ experience • 6 Local Action Groups (LAGs) in Marche, in rural areas with territorial disadvantages [79% of regional rural territory (7.655 km2, internal hills and mountains) and 30% of regional population (451.689 inhabitants)]. • European public fund share: 5.7% (11.523.000 €) of Rural Development Program (RDP) of Marche Region (that is 2.4% of EAFRD allocation for Italy = 202.302.000 € for 2007-2013) • More and less an half of LEADER fund is utilized for the activation and “life” of LAGs, the other half of capital is spent for managing the Axis3 of Marche RDP: Measures for quality of life and diversification of economic activities (excluding agritourism activation)

LAG identity and activity in Marche • Generally the social capital is 49% public (provinces, municipalities, mountain communities, and so on) and 51% private (industrial, artesian and agriculture associations and consortiums, banks, firms, farms, and so on) • More than 70% of funds are invested in tourism and inside tourism the greatest quota of expenditure is in building restoration • LEADER+ in Marche is neither directed to agriculture and forestry competitiveness (Axis1 of RDP)nor in environment and countryside management and protection (Axis2 of RDP)

Does the LAG identity and activity represent a bottom-up approach to RTD? • In Marche the equity structures of the six LAGs working are practically superimposable(51% private, 49% public) • The six LAG’s Local Development Planes (LDPs) are practically superimposable • In the six LPSs agriculture is often dimensioned as a socio-economic target sector but it is incomprehensibly (really not so much) excluded from the domain of LAG activity for a political choice (LAGs in Marche can only implement misuses included in the 3th Axis of Regional RDP, agriculture is in the Axis1, the same goes for forestry which is domain of Axes2) • Tourism is the recurring target sector (and building restoration for tourism) in all the six LDPs • Rural territorial marketing is the recurring strategy planned by the LAGs in supporting the local territory in a very competitive tourism market • But LAGs incoherently can’t apply measures related to agri-tourism start-up (while being agriturism start-up a measure placed in the Axes3 of regional RDP).

So, LAG experience in Marche could represent only another bureaucratic level to manage a quota of RTD that is a top-down driven policy • People want to decide their own fate: the fate is tourism, democracy is tourism, God save the tourism! • What FAO defines Participatory and Negotiated Territorial Development (PNDT)is a good compromise to have a relative bottom-up approach to the RTD. • But the LEADER+ methodology has nothing to do not even with PNDT and this is a fault.

Bottom-up in Marche, Italy: the GAS experience • If the LEADER+ approach is a definitive top-down oriented policy managed by “local communities”,the GAS grassroots movementis a spontaneous experience which was born by civil society. • But is this enough to assume the GAS network as a bottom-up driven approach to RTD? • GAS is the acronym of Gruppo di Acquisto Solidale (Solidarity Purchasing group)

Bottom-up in Marche, Italy: the GAS experience • In their paper on the GAS experience in Marche Belletti at all illustrate selected results of an exploratory research study coordinated by the “Solidarity Economy Network” of the Marche Region in Italy (REES Marche) in 2010-2011. • The study was funded by Banca Popolare Etica (Ethic Bank), it involved three Universities of the Region (Università Politecnica delle Marche, Università di Macerata, Università di Camerino), adopting an interdisciplinary approach. • Exploring the experience of the “GAS” (Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale, solidarity purchasing groups) as an example of a bottom-up grassroots movement. • Face to face quanti-qualitative interviews, focus groups and in-depth interview to a quota-sample of: • 20 GAS, • 182 GAS Household Members (GHMs), • 50 GAS suppliers (among which 20 agricultural GAS suppliers). • Based on this research we wrote a book edited by Orazi (2011)

The “galaxy” of GAS members:a sociological profile • They are young individuals with a high level of education, the majority are female, with a middle-class social background. • The GAS members (especially women) mainly perceive critical consumption as a tool with strong public and policy values and strong implications for redefining cultural and social claim. • In some ways the GAS members emerge as an élite group that does not represent the worldwide society, but rather embeds the shape of a new social movement of active citizenship (Orazi and Socci, 2011). • The GAS sociological structure: • incentives inside the movement

Exploring minority influence:a psycho-sociological profile inside GAS • Their mutual liaison remains very unstable. • There is an abstract belief in the social function of the state of minority active citizenshipas a factor of social change (Pojaghi, 2011). • To affect the social reality a relevant set of organization and communication skills is needed. • Moscovici (1976) highlights that the social minority influence is possible only if the minority group is consistent and recognisable in its philosophy and objectives. • The GAS grassroots is a top-down or a bottom-up movement? • Which are its philosophy and objectives? • We are speaking of seeds of a new institutional paradigms based on equity and solidarity?

GAS member type A Idealistic GAS members: consumption as a lever of radical transformation of the economic model Ethically oriented GAS members: critical of the “dominant economic model” Active but not idealistic GAS members: critical consumption as a tool of renewal of democratic participation Pragmatic GAS members: less politically active, less ethical aware Interested in establishing network of relationships and trying alternative consumption practices Motivated by the possibility of saving and purchasing “high quality” local foods GAS member type B

“The new producers”: a sociological profile • The conception of the network as a relational systemwas shown to be practiced in part, but not always considered a priority. • The question of market organization was sometimes lived as personal hard work rather than a goal to be achieved together with a participatory (bottom-up) approach and shared aims. • GASs suppliers activity may be viewed as a strategy of “theExit” rather than that of “the Voice” (Hirschman, 1982). In fact, their activity inside the GAS network usually arise as an alternative context but no antagonist to the dominant economic model (Giovagnoli, 2011)

The role of food. • According to the approach of Duglas and Irshwood (1984) food is a tool to interpret reality. • Food as a vehicle for values (institutions) that affect identity and social relationships • Thus, the alternative consumption practices are not simply moved by ecological and social motivation, but rather they pursue a goal of communication. • In this moment, in the ”GAS Planet” the concept of the solidarity economy is a political driving force for action, while the creation of a self-managed short food supply chain (SFSC, Renting, 2003) is that action.

Three crisis points in GAS experience • n.1 bounded rationality • The GAS market functioning in a SFSC • The matter of agricultural income • n.2 impact on supply chain • The Italian agri-food market • The hidden effect of competition on quality-price ratio • is a sensitive spread between supply and demand values • n.3 willingness to pay for the change • The price and quality relationship • Quality labels and certificates are among the most widely used methods to compensate for information asymmetry in food markets. Nevertheless food safety (along with quality certification and environmental impact of production) remains a credence attribute (Poulton and Lyne, 2009).

To what degree is the GAS experience really bottom-up? • From a psychological perspective the GAS undoubtedly represents a top-down approach • Why: because it is based on the food economy and all input relative agriculture and food quality are external and therefore top-down. • From an organizational perspective, however, the GAS clearly represents a bottom-up approach, that has a psychologically top-down orientation. • Given the above, the open question is: if GAS experience is a bottom-up organization characterized by a psychologically top-down orientation, what will the GAS economy be, botto-up or top-down?

The bottom-up approach to RTD in Costa Rica, today • The basic structure of decentralization process in Costa Rica (moving from the bottom to the top stage: • Consejo de Distrito (District Council) • Where the local community define their district territorial plans (DTP) • Comitè Cìvico Cantonal (Canton Civic Committee) • Where the Canton institutions and communities work together to define – starting from the their DTP – their Canton Territorial Plans (CTP) • Consejos Cantonales de Coordinaciòn Interinstitutional (CCCI)(Canton Board of Institutional Coordination) • Where the local institutions (national, regional, , etc.) participating define the Annual Operating Plan (Plan Operativo Anual, POA). Here the local institutions have to negotiate the opportunity to include their CTP in the POAs

The challenge of bottom-up approach to RTD in Coto Brus • Today in Costa Rica is the process starting up more akin to the LEADERS in EU or is it hopefully something more innovative? • A very interesting element specific of Coto Brus Canton is the central role given by the Canton to the University in managing, “technically”, a participatory and negotiated process. A “technical government” could be defined bottom-up because not being influenced by the policy and emerging by a specific “problem”, it born from an individual element to the whole.

Coto Brus at the beginning: a social bottom-up design summarized in some slides

Coto Brus at the beginning • After 18 failed attempts over 60 years in the remote, inhospitable valley of the Coto Brus River in the south of the Country on the border of Panama, the Costarican Government conceded 10.000 hectares of forest to the Italian Land Settlement Company (ILSC) on 22 July 1951. • On the 28 February 1952 a tent was erected in the middle of the forest in the exact position that in less than 10 years would become the square of San Vito de Java, centre of what is today the economic region of Coto Brus. • The ILSC challenge was based on the obligation (never maintained) subscripted by Costa Rican Government in making pass the Pan-American Highway in San Vito, critical to the trade of coffee, the core product for pioneer’s challenge. • The main incentive of Costa Rican Government in the settlement concession to ILSC (with the National Law n.18/26 September 1927, Costa Rica encouraged immigration of pioneers, officially welcome the Italians) was the development of a very fertile wild region to address the strong growth of population rate

From pioneers to society • The commitment established that 2.000 hectares of the 10.000 conceded will become property of ILSC. The remaining land will be conceded in property to the settler families (only 20% Italians, 80% Costa Ricans). The plan provided that the rest of the region would develop endogenously starting from the core settlement, and this really happened • In 1952 Ugo Sansonetti and other 8 Italian pioneers penetrated with machetes in the Coto Brus Valley; • After 1 year the Italian pioneer families was 20, much more the Costa Ricans pioneers and their families in their new farms • At the end of September 1954 the Pioneers of Coto Brus proved to have become a community in only two years: a strong flood falls on Costa Rica. The newborn village “San Vito” not only could refused the help offered by the Government and received by radio. They could manage the emergence by their self and help some nearby communities remained isolated. Ugo Sansonetti was now a leader of a new community, developed in semi-absolute isolation, more than the director of an foreign enterprise.

San Vito de Coto Brus 1954-1956 • Constructed their church, 8 December of 1954 San Vito inhabitants celebrated their first “First Communion” : eight children, six males and 2 females among which Marina the first daughter of Ugo Sansonetti. • Without any public subsidies and with the only the work of the new citizens, San Vito inaugurated its elementary school with 92 students (32 Italians, among which Lavinia, one of the daughters of Ugo Sansonetti, the others Costa Ricans) • ILSC and San Vito community, not reaching the dreamed road, having constructed their self (with a credit to ILSC by USA with the guarantee of Costa Rican Government) the airport (The Giulio Cesare Sansonetti airport) in only 9 weeks (to prevent the rain season coming, the sure end of the community without the airport!!). They now could sell their marvellous coffee to the World. • At the and of fifteen, San Vito has become a town based on agriculture but with an high differentiated economy: shops, public services, medicals, crafts. All endogenously created by the community practically without subsidies and with a good integration of the indigenous community of Indios Guaymì. • In 1962 Ugo Sansonetti came back to Italy with his wife Carla and their ten children, five were born in the forest. The ninth Province of Costa Rica was a reality.

Concluding remarks • Bottom-up psychology: Italians and Costa Rican pioneers in Coto Brus were totally isolated, their incentive was the opportunity to create their own future • key elements: strong isolation and incentives • Bottom-up organization: Ugo Sansonetti was the LEADER of pioneers who successfully become rapidly a peaceful, multi-cultural society. Each family was assigned of a farm. No employees in San Vito, only members of a community, everyone with is own property but in a community approach subsidies free. • Key elements: land settlement plan based on sharecropping in Italy • Bottom-up economy: San Vito generated itself values, the private and public services and infrastructures needed • Key elements: individual aspiration and communitarian institutions, demonstrating that when the incentives work and the plan is good is not true that the institutional evolution requires so much time as the literature tells (Mantzavinos, 2001).

Thanks for your attention! The one who adapts his policy to the times prospers, and likewise that the one whose policy clashes with the demands of the times does not. (Niccolò Machiavelli)

Rural Territorial Bottom-up Model Development Constraints