A Living Countryside?

The Politics of Sustainable Development in Rural Ireland

Tony Varley, John McDonagh

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317187622
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Physical Sciences
• Subtopic: Geography
• Index: Geography

By examining a range of experiences from both the north and south of Ireland, this book asks what the ideal of sustainable development might mean to specific rural groups and how sustainable development goals have been pursued across the policy spectrum. It assesses the extent of commitment to a living countryside in Ireland and compares various opportunities and obstacles to the actual achievement of sustainable rural development. How different sectors of rural society will be challenged in terms of future survival provides an overarching theme throughout.

Chapter 1
The Politics of Rural Sustainability

Tony Varley, John McDonagh and Sally Shortall

Introduction

What is most striking about the concept of ‘sustainable development’ today is how ubiquitous it has become and consequently how various and potentially contestable its meanings have proved to be. Certainly there is no shortage of critics of the concept. Michael Redclift’s (2005) review article carries the revealing title: ‘Sustainable Development (1987–2005): An Oxymoron Comes of Age’. What impresses Timothy Luke (2005, p. 228) is how ‘the intellectual emptiness of sustainable development has clung to it from the moment of its official articulation by the World Commission on the Environment and Development’.

Despite its complexity and potential contestability, it is nonetheless possible to find in the concept of sustainable development some useful general features (see Baker 2006, pp. 212–3). The broad normative ideal of sustainability that it inscribes may be a difficult one to live up to in practice (some would even see the task as utopian), but it can be argued that as a general ideal it is morally commendable and that it can potentially provide a standard of sorts by reference to which actors in the real world (and those who study them) can position themselves.

As soon as we move from the rather lofty general level, however, matters begin to become more complicated. At the lower altitudes the normative ideal of sustainable development inevitably encounters the question of ‘whose sustainability?’ or ‘sustainable for whom?’ Such a question implies two things: that different interests (or at least those who speak for them) must at some point decide what is ‘sustainable’ and ‘unsustainable’ for them in light of their own specific circumstances; and that what different interests take to be ‘sustainable’ and ‘unsustainable’ may throw up a number of possibilities as regards how they choose to deal with one another. They may, for instance, agree and co-operate, disagree and come into conflict or perhaps both agree and disagree in ways that mix co-operation and contention in varying proportions.

What is also evident is that the question of ‘whose sustainability?’ can be seen as presenting itself at different junctures: in initially deciding what is to be understood by sustainable development, in moving to give effect to what has been decided and in reflecting on and assessing the outcomes of what is ultimately achieved. In the real world these junctures may overlap, as when the process of implementation has a significant bearing on what people come to understand discursively by sustainable development. Assessing the outcomes may present other difficulties. Even if only a moderately ambitious standard of sustainable development is taken, it might be objected that the ideal can never be realized in any final or enduring sense. The point of this objection is that sustainable development, far from being achieved once and for all, has always to be regarded as to some degree ‘under construction’ or even ‘all to play for’. At the very least such an objection raises the issue of whether the gains of ‘sustainable development’ can be maintained in the longer term.

When we descend then from the higher altitudes – or the realm of general normative ideals – sustainable development quickly begins to stand out for its potential contestability. Such contestability spans different junctures: in deciding what constitutes sustainable development initially, in the manner of its pursuit and in assessing outcomes. It is this potential contestability, in all its variety, that opens the door to the ‘politics of sustainability’, a politics that revolves around discursive struggles over how sustainable development is to be properly understood at different junctures by those representing and defending different interests.

Two broad ideal-typical possibilities – what we will term the consensual and the contentious – can be introduced to characterize the sort of directions that this politics of sustainability, centred on sustainable development’s potential contestability, might conceivably take. On the one hand, notions of what constitutes sustainable development may – where conceptions, implementations and outcomes are concerned – be widely shared. This can result in considerable consensus and co-operation between a diversity of actors willing to pull together to give effect to what they can mutually agree. On the other hand, notions of what constitute sustainable development, its pursuit and the assessment of its achievements may become the subject of considerable disagreement and contention between different interests. How such disagreement and contention take shape, and how they are handled and resolved (if at all), involves political processes every bit as much as does the construction of consensus and the organization of co-operation around some conception of sustainable development, its pursuit and the interpretation of its outcomes.

To examine the context from which the recent concept of ‘sustainable development’ has emerged can help us explore further the suggestion that sustainable development always implies a politics of sustainability. Here the unavoidable starting point is the World Commission on the Environment and Development (WCED), better known as the Brundtland Commission, which was convened by the UN General Assembly in 1983. Its establishment, in a global context where the world’s population was experiencing unprecedented growth, reflected a keen concern with the accelerating deterioration of the human environment and depletion of non-renewable natural resources, and with the consequences of that deterioration and depletion for economic, social and political development in the near and distant future.

The publication in 1987 of the Brundtland report, Our Common Future, would spark a debate about the nature of ‘sustainable development’, and the prospects of achieving it, that still continues. Central to the conclusions of the Brundtland report was the realization that ‘a new development path was required, one that sustained human progress not just in a few places for a few years, but for the entire planet into the distant future’ (Dresner 2002, p. 31). For this new path to be ‘sustainable’ it would have to be (in the famous formulation) a form of ‘development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (ibid., p. 31). Such a conception of sustainable development, ‘simple and vague’ as it may be (ibid., p. 31), is useful in so far as it draws our attention to how critical are notions of temporality, survival and balance to the Brundtland formulation.

What can be concluded is that a principle of ‘survival via balance’ informs the Brundtland conception of sustainable development. It is not just a matter of balancing the needs of present and future generations. Ever since the Brundtland report’s appearance an ever more pressing political challenge has been how some workable ‘balance’ might be struck between the competing demands of economic growth and environmental protection (ibid., p. 63). A more ambitious and complex form of dynamic balance would be required when social development (encompassing a range of social inclusion needs) is added to the equation.

Beneath the surface of the Brundtland and other conceptions of sustainable development it is possible to discover a functionalist notion of ‘survival via balance’. Typically the ‘survival’ in question relates to some ‘system’ that can encompass global society in all its vastness, nationally organized societies or even smaller territorial and social formations (such as regions). Within a functionalist conceptual framework each of these territorial and social formations can be seen as constituting a system of elements in which each element contributes variously, but critically, to the survival prospects of the system as a whole. What sustainability implies here is that a necessary condition of survival is that some workable balance must be struck between the different elements that make up the system.

Of course functionalist notions of ‘survival via balance’ were well known in social science long before the recent advent of ‘sustainable development’ as a distinctive concept and political/developmental project. Early modernization perspectives began by being quite upbeat about the prospects for ultimately striking some acceptable and workable balance (however dynamic and shifting) that would deliver social, economic and political development, and thus survival in the form of a progressive and sustainable future to people in general (see So 1990). For some of those who influenced modernization theory the market was to be seen as fundamentally a self-governing mechanism for balancing the demand and supply of a myriad of commodities. For others what balance was achievable did not occur spontaneously and autonomously; it had to be consciously created and maintained, thus suggesting that the pursuit of sustainability, in the ‘survival via balance’ sense, could never be anything other than a political process.

There were of course always those in the social sciences who questioned whether ‘survival via balance’ is attainable both in general and in the longer term. The critics (as exemplified by Marxist and Dependency writers) acknowledge that system survival may be possible to some degree (certainly in the short run) while still insisting on seeing such survival as built on deeply problematic relationships of domination and exploitation between the different elements that make up the system. Imbalances that reflect power differences between classes, states and regions abound in the world as theorized by Marxist and Dependency theorists. In a world that is organized around patterns of uneven and unbalanced development, disturbances, dislocations and conflicts tend to thrive and to find a multitude of expressions (Kitching 1989). In short, according to the critics of ‘survival via balance’, ‘survival via imbalance’ provides an infinitely better description of the way the world actually works.

What we have in the social sciences then are two different and conflicting visions of sustainability. One sees the existing order (or orders) surviving or being ‘sustained’ on the basis of ‘balance’, and the other on the basis of ‘imbalance’. In considering how such balance or imbalance is achieved and maintained, attention focuses variously on how market forces, states and organized economic and social interests interact with each other. Another germane issue concerns the sort of politics that the pursuit of sustainability based on balance or imbalance produces. While early modernization theory may have often emphasized consensual politics and Dependency and Marxist positions contentious politics, many real world situations can be encountered where the consensual and the contentious co-exist or are mixed together. A final issue to be addressed concerns itself with the question of ‘outcomes’ – who ‘wins’ and who ‘loses’, and with what consequences, when development based on balance or imbalance is being pursued?

Rural sustainable development

Specifically in relation to rural areas, Karl Marx observed presciently in the middle of the nineteenth century how the countryside would increasingly find itself subject ‘to the rule of the towns’ within the emerging city-centred system of modern capitalist industrial societies (Marx and Engels [1848] 1992, p. 7). Urban domination of the countryside was certainly set to increase and to condemn many rural inhabitants to a future of uneven and imbalanced development that would have migration, dislocation and marginalization on a global scale among its litany of sharp consequences (Roberts 1995).

Of course, threatened rural populations did not always meekly accept their fate as declining groups in a system dominated by ever more powerful urban-based industrial interests and the states that took their side. In particular the rural populists (and their intellectuals) would launch a critique of the dominant urban-based industrial model that has endured (in many different guises) since the nineteenth century (Lipton 1977; Kitching 1989). Explicitly identifying with those who were losing out under the dominant version of modernity, the broad populist challenge has been to find a modern alternative to an increasingly dominant urban-based social formation that had capitalist industrialization as its economic centre. Fundamental to many populist political projects historically (frequently dismissed as utopian by their critics) has been the desire to deliver sustainable futures to rural populations under severely imbalanced and hostile conditions.

In a simplified world three perspectives can be identified in looking at how ‘systems’ achieve and maintain sufficient ‘balance’ or ‘imbalance’ to ‘survive’ or ‘sustain’ themselves. The system may be seen from the standpoint of those who ‘win’, those who ‘lose’ or from those who adopt a social science functionalist perspective that seeks to remain ‘above the fray’ by looking at the dynamics of system survival from a purportedly free-floating ‘systems’ perspective. At the core of a populist analysis of ‘sustainable development’ is some notion of systems surviving or sustaining themselves on the basis of ‘imbalance’ rather than ‘balance’.

The process and underlying dynamics of survival are seen, according to this populist version of ‘survival via imbalance’, to be suffused with power relations. Inequality and relative powerlessness may be core features of how social, economic and political orders were sustained in the past, but sustainable futures will depend for rural populists on how well relatively powerless groups (and the powerful interests who sometimes take their side) can alter the power structures embedded in patterns of unbalanced and uneven development by re-negotiating them to their own advantage.

With the benefit of hindsight we now know that many populist challenges to the status quo would end in failure (Kitching 1989). We further know that, in many instances, the context for pursuing a politics of rural survival (and ‘sustainability’) has become steadily more adverse. Adding appreciably to this adversity are the imbalances that emanate from the challenges of globalization, the rapidly advancing commodification of the ‘consumption’ countryside (Marsden 1999), the increasing (and often competing) demands on rural resources and the high levels of social exclusion often found in rural areas.

One specific marker of adversity (as both cause and consequence) – that which finds expression in the scale of population decline in the remoter disadvantaged rural areas – would prove important in urging policy makers at the European Union (EU) level to embrace the ideal of rural sustainable development. Concerns that the progressively more ecologically damaging character of intensive farming in favoured agricultural areas would have to be addressed as a matter of priority proved to be another driving force. From the context then it is clear that the European idea of using the notion of rural sustainable development to counter problems such as desertification and ecological degradation – problems that in time would prompt the introduction of such measures as the LEADER area partnerships and the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme (REPS) (European Commission 1988; Kearney et al. 1994) – was substantially born out of crisis conditions.

Taking advantage of the post-Bruntland and post-Rio swing to ‘sustainable development’, what the European embrace of rural sustainable development signalled as well was a desire to be innovative in the policy sphere. The elements of the European intervention – in particular the notions of subsidiarity, partnership, participation and empowerment – were offered as the building blocks of a purportedly new model of development aimed at achieving balanced economic, social and environmental change. In promoting this new model ‘sustainable development’ (as to a lesser degree was true of its predecessor and close family relation, ‘integrated rural development’) has proved to be an evocative (if still often vague) concept.

An optimistic reading might suggest that the prospects for the project of rural sustainable development (and its attendant politics) are bright enough. Certainly it would appear that the relevant policy actors and organized rural interests can agree that rural policy should be founded on a normative commitment to ‘sustainability’ and to ‘a living countryside’. To go by the commitments of the Cork Declaration of 1996, the Salzburg Conference of 2003 and the 3rd Report on Economic and Social Cohesion (2004), a strong commitment to the ideal of a living countryside has materialized within the EU. It has further been broadly accepted that pursuit of this ideal will require dynamic local actors who, in partnership with the state and the EU, can develop their capacities to develop the local economy while safeguarding the environment and promoting social inclusion.

But are such acceptances and commitments enough of themselves? For some the real challenge of striving for rural sustainable development is to be found at the level of implementation. Without significant progress at this level the whole approach can never begin to realize its promise. Nor are the challenges at this level to be underestimated. Whether the striking of some sort of workable and lasting balance between social, economic and environmental considerations can be achieved in general at the level of implementation remains substantially an open question. What we can be sure of is that questions relating to what the ideal of sustainable rural development might mean for specific rural groups, and how it might be understood in specific policy areas, become unavoidable at this level.

So far one policy area, that occupying the interface between agriculture and the environment, has featured very prominently when efforts have been made to give effect to sustainable development. Some critics have indeed suggested that efforts at pursuing sustainable rural development have so far hardly gone beyond the ‘greening’ of farming (Lowe and Ward 2007). While there are solid reasons why much of the current EU funding provision for rural development should go towards stimulating environmental farming, progress is likely to be limited as long as policies remain centred excessively on agriculture and therefore confined largely to one sector (Marsden 1999; Bryden 2005).

While regulation and the offering of incentives have been used to achieve environmental sustainability in rural Europe, the approach to economic and social sustainability has relied considerably on the promotion of endogenous models of rural development. The LEADER programme, launched in 1991, was thus designed to encourage ‘bottom-up’ development in rural areas on a ‘partnership’ basis. This partnership approach was aimed at making the products and services of rural areas more competitive, adding value to local production and improving the quality of life in rural areas. It was anticipated that local ‘participation’ would be a central element in both the design and implementation phases of the local area partnerships.

There is now a substantial literature assessing the early performance of endogenous models of rural development in delivering on economic growth, social inclusion and more integrated rural development (Curtin and Varley 1997; Edwards et al. 2000; Shucksmith 2000; Commins 2004; Scott 2004; Bryden 2005; McAreavey 2006; Shortall 2008). What generally can be said is that while some notable advances have been recorded, the potential of endogenous and partnership-based approaches still remains substantially unrealized.

Why this is so can be attributed to a number of reasons. At a broad level there can be little doubt but that sustainable rural development has been subject to a lack of clarity vis-à-vis wider EU and state policy goals (Marsden 1999; Davis 1999). In particular it has yet to become clear how the model of bottom-up development might optimally relate to regional, national, and EU policies more generally. There is some evidence to suggest that policies at these different levels have sometimes been in serious conflict with one another.

The pursuit of rural sustainability, as others have noted (Bryden 1994; Lowe and Ward 2007), is substantially influenced by the choices of political elites and, in a context of perceived incompatible ends and limited resources, its pursuit can be expected to entail the making of hard decisions about priorities for rural areas. It follows that the pursuit of rural sustainability is likely to be attended by considerable struggle, as one conception of sustainability comes to vie with another or others and as competition over incompatible ends and the distribution of scarce resources generates tensions and conflicts. When the politics of sustainability become contentious (as against consensual) in these ways, whose interests come to the fore and prevail can tell us much about the distribution of political, economic and social power within and outside the countryside.

Against such a backdrop both the opportunities available (and that can be created) to advance conceptions of sustainable rural development and the obstacles that lie in their path will be considered in this volume across a range of cases. Questions of how the opportunities to hand are being taken up and the obstacles negotiated, at the centre of the politics of rural sustainability, feature in many guises throughout this book. By way of answer some of our contributors highlight how a reluctance to make decisions unfavourable to powerful interest groups can be a major barrier to both the implementatio...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Perspectives on Rural Policy and Planning
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Notes on Contributors
• List of Abbreviations
• 1 The Politics of Rural Sustainability
• Part I Policy and Planning for Sustainability
• Part II Primary Production and Sustainability
• Part III Information Technology, Tourism and Sustainability
• Part IV Social Differentiation and Sustainability
• Part V Sustainability and Civil Society
• Conclusion
• Index