cultivar_22_Final_EN

Depopulation in rural areas: between inevitability and the ability to change 47 cultural and rural tourism, or the consequences of attracting neo-rurals to mitigate depopulation but insufficient to stop or, even more so, reverse it. Between inevitability and transformation: what to do? The debate on the depopulation of rural areas, and those in the “interior” in particular, is systematically associated with two ideas: the repopulation of the “interior” and the anchoring of local populations. Both ideas are misconceived. The former, if looked at in general, contains a dangerous delusion and the wrong political message: that it is possible to reverse demographic loss in all rural areas, unrealistically ignoring the structural diversity of existing situations. The latter, if wrongly inter- preted, seems like an impo- sition that not only fails to take account of the fact that the right to the place (i.e., to remain in the town or munici- pality one lives in) is as impor- tant as the right to mobility (i.e., to seek desired personal, professional and family opportunities elsewhere by choice) but does not bear in mind that the important point is to provide conditions for each citizen to choose his/her preferred option – neither “forced to remain or leave”. Of course, rejection of the simplistic use of these two ideas does not assume the acritical acceptance of their opposite: the inevitable depopulation of rural areas and, consequently, the denial of public responsibility because inevitably doomed to fail; the inevitable closure of essential facilities and services based on a financial rationale and, consequently, the natural departure of those who no longer find their needs satisfied at the local level. All official documents, from both international and national organisations, argue for more resilient rural areas by promoting growth, job creation and gen- erational turnover in relevant activities, particularly agriculture. However, these general aims clash with diverse rural realities, as exemplified above, and highly unequal capacities to adapt to change and transformation. How far then can public policies counteract the depopulation of rural areas? There is no single or magical answer to this question that guarantees success. However, several measures can and must be taken: i) A generalised reversal of depopulation in rural areas is impossible, therefore a differentiated and selective approach is needed. ii) This approach implies a robust prior assess- ment based on thorough information and multidisciplinary knowledge of the current and foreseeable relation- ship between ecology, com- munity and economy to develop strategies, policies and instruments aimed at: (a) increasing the sustainability of areas with a positive or sta- ble demographic evolution; (b) reversing trends in areas with a slight population loss; and (c) proactively managing areas of structural popula- tion loss (which in planning instruments in countries like Italy or Spain are called “open spaces”, i.e., scarcely populated but nei- ther forgotten nor abandoned). iii) The prior assessment must allow a selective identification of types of rural areas and sub-re- gional territorial units that are relevant for pub- lic intervention. iv) Given the historical relationship between rural areas and farming, rural development policies, namely under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), tend to extend this relationship, prevent- ing a more suitable vision for post-agricultural rural areas. v) Moreover, and given the relevance of the (good) “Leader” methodology in Pillar 2 of the CAP, the the wrong political message: that it is possible to reverse demographic loss in all rural areas, unrealistically ignoring the structural diversity of existing situations. … the right to the place (i.e., to remain in the town or municipality one lives in) is as important as the right to mobility (i.e., to seek desired personal, professional and family opportunities elsewhere by choice)