rethinking latin america’s rural shift · rethinking latin america’s rural shift julio a....
TRANSCRIPT
Rethinking Latin America’s rural shift
Julio A. Berdegué Ignacia Fernández Angela Penagos
Conference at the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada, April 12, 2017
Content
▶ Understanding societies at the rural-urban interface, and their structural transformation
▶ Large-scale impact: expanding opportunities and wellbeing
▶ The successful IDRC-Rimisp partnership
The focus of our conference:Societies at the rural-urbaninterface
Ingresar TituloRural? Urban? Both?
Ingresar TituloThe century of the (small and medium) cities
47%
58%59%
65% 65%
73%75%
80% 82%83%
91%
N AMERICA LAC OCEANIA S AFRICA E ASIA WORLD EUROPE W AFRICA S ASIA SE ASIA E AFRICA
Ru
ral +
Urb
an <
50
0k
(% o
f to
tal)
World’s population at the rural-urban interface
Ingresar TituloThe structural transformation as a driver of “rurbanization”
▶ 73% of the world’s population
▶ 85% of the global extreme poor
▶ The vast majority of the global extreme poor work in agriculture work, 42% on farms less than 1 hectare in size
▶ 99.6% of all land
▶ 82% of fresh water use
▶ 59% of greenhouse gases emissions
(Estimates: sources and assumptions available upon demand)
There is no hope of achieving the SDGs without engagingsocieties at the rural-urban interface
Ingresar título
An IDRC-sponsored quest for a new understanding of transformed societies at the rural-urban interface
Where do people live their lives?
7% of the population in “deep rural” green
43% of population in “rural-urban” yellow
50% of the population in “urban” red
Where do people live their lives?Where do people live their lives?
Where do people live their lives?Where do people live their lives?
Where do people live their lives?Where do people live their lives?
Where do people live their lives?Where do people live their lives?
19% of the population in “deep rural” green
32% of population in “rural-urban” yellow
49% of the population in “urban” red
Where do people live their lives?Where do people live their lives?
Where do people live their lives?Opportunities and wellbeing
Where do people live their lives?Opportunities and wellbeing
Urbanization
patterns
Changes in
agrifood systems
Changes in
labor markets
Three vectors of the transformation
CountryNon-farm rural employment, %
c. 1990 c. 2012 Change
Chile 31.5 53.2 69%
Bolivia 14.6 23.7 62%
Brazil 22.3 34.6 55%
Guatemala 28.5 43.0 51%
Uruguay 31.4 40.6 29%
Paraguay 36.6 47.2 29%
Mexico 50.1 64.6 29%
Colombia 42.2 53.0 26%
El Salvador 45.0 54.1 20%
Honduras 31.0 37.1 20%
Costa Rica 56.9 66.6 17%
Panama 44.2 50.3 14%
Ecuador 34.0 38.0 12%
Dominican Rep 58.8 65.3 11%
Peru 25.2 27.2 8%
Nicaragua 36.6 30.1 -18%
Where do people work?
Female
Manufacturing Electricity
Construction Commerce
Transportation Financial
Real estate Public administration
Social services Agriculture
Mining Other
Male
Manufacturing Electricity
Construction Commerce
Transportation Financial
Real estate Public administration
Social services Agriculture
Mining Other
Colombia, 2013, rural workers per sector
100
91
82
6764
35
100
111115
123
115
106100
104
9590
7275
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1990 1998 2003 2006 2009 2013
Chile
Commercial farmers Farm workers Smallholders
Lineal (Commercial farmers) Lineal (Farm workers) Lineal (Smallholders)
How are smallholder farmers affected by this transformation?
▶ Economic autonomy: the ability of women to generate their own income and resources through remunerated work under conditions equal to those of men
▶ The effect of the territory on thedifferentiated ability of men and womento generate income, is statisticallysignificant
▶ Different territories offer different opportunities for expanding women’s economic autonomy – there is an interaction between spatial and gender inequalities, so that women in some territories are even more constrained than women in other places
Men and women are affected differently by the rural transformation
▶ The economic structure of different territories
▶ The spatial distribution of women’s assets
▶ Differences in the formal and informal institutions that characterize each territory
▶ Social actors agents present in the territory
Factors that explain the variation of gender inequalitiesacross territories
Bajo Cauca
region in the
Department
of Antioquia
▶ Greater importance of women’s employment in the services sector
▶ Economy in transition. This used to be a region much affected by the armed conflict, where the government has invested in economic development as a way of consolidating its presence.
▶ Well established traditional social norms favoring greater gender equality
▶ Women are well organized and have a well-established capacity to influence social change (e.g., Network of Women of the Bajo Cauca).
Cumbal
municipality
in the
Department
of Nariño
▶ Over 80% of the population is indigenous
▶ The local economy is largely agricultural, and offers few options for off-farm formal employment for women.
▶ Mostly informal jobs.
▶ Women value their indigenous culture as an economic asset
▶ Development programs supported by international agencies have strengthened the organizations of indigenous women. Greater understanding of their own responsibility and capacities to change their economic environment
Some territories do better in reducing the gender cap in economic autonomy
▶ Above and beyond of policies and programs to reduce the economic gender gap at the national, aggregate level, it is necessary to recognize that place-specific (territorial) strategies will be necessary
▶ National analyses of territorial development dynamics must measure and keep track of the evolution of gender gaps at the scale of territories, not only as national averages
▶ Territorial economic development initiatives should internalize how they will differentially affect men and women. For example, should we prefer strategy X which gives the highest rate of territorial economic growth, over strategy Y, if X does less than Y to reduce the gender gap in economic autonomy?
▶ Territorial development programs ought to prioritize public goods and services that reduce the opportunity cost of women in the formal, off-farm labor market (e.g., child care centres, care of senior citizens)
▶ Territorial development programs must invest in promoting women’s organization and collective action, in the economic and in the policy spheres
What can be done at the interaction between gender and territory to enhance women’s economic autonomy?
Expanding opportunities and enhancing wellbeing of people in societies at the rural-urban
▶ To promote transformation strategies for rural territories in Latin America, based on a deep understanding of their development dynamics and challenges.
Rimip’s mission
Territorial development in
the peace-building process
Territorial planning
Highlights of Rimisp policy engagement in Colombia
Source: DANE, DNP, 2015
VariablePostconflict
municipalities
Population 7,405,612
GDP (USD Million) 140
Share of agriculture in GDP (%) 16%
Share of extractive industries in GDP
(%)19%
Multidimensional poverty (%) 80%
Tax revenue in total municipal income
(%)10%
Source: Rimisp
Territorial development in the Colombian peace building process
Territorial Development Programs - PDET
Is an Institutional, social, economic and policy strategy, to promote
structural change in the most poor and neglected territories
Opportunities Equity Democracy
With the goal of providing
Effective citizenship Basis wellbeing standardsProtect pluri-ethnic and multicultural richness
Smallholder agricultureRegional development and
integrantion
Linked to the SDG framework
Territorial Development
Wh
ere
the
rura
l in
hab
itan
ts c
an:
▶ Building territorial peace requires regulating the access to and the use of space and the resources therein:
▶ 59% of rural households lack titles to their land.
▶ 55% of rural areas in conflict over land use and ecological capacity.
▶ 97% of existing municipal zoning plans do not include rural areas.
▶ More than 6.6 millions hectares and 5.7 million people, affected by forced displacement during the conflict – restitution a huge issue
Territorial Planning
Source: DANE, DNP, 2015
Source: Rimisp
VariableSelected
municipalities POT
Population7,367,242
(68,215)
GDP (USD million) 331
Share of agriculture in GDP
(%)15%
Share of extractive industries
in GDP (%)10%
Multidimensional poverty (%) 69%
Tax revenue in total municipal
income (%)14%
Territorial Planning
Conceptual and
methodological
guidelines
Technical
assistance
Innovations on
concepts and
processes
Local capacity
building
Monitoring and
follow-up system
Promote better conditions to exercise rural citizens’ rights
Recognize the rural – urban
interface
Contribute to rural poverty reduction and to closing the urban-rural gap
Foster rural development
Provide legal certaintyover land ownership to
avoid land dispossession
and stimulate investment
Resolve land use conflicts promoting
sustainable land-use planning
Outputs Challenges
Main outputs contribute to overcome rural planning challenges
With (more than) a little help from our friends
Network-building
▶ IDRC has been the most important partner of Rimisp
• A risk-taker that is willing to go beyond the comfort zone of well-
established issues and ideas
• Co-producing results and impact, by engaging in real, substantive
discussion and debate, above and beyond enforcing its accountability
obligations
• Long-term engagement necessary to achieve results and impacts that
are compatible with the magnitude of our challenges
• Investing in developing capacities of its partners and not only in the
work we do
Final remarks
Ready for 30 more years!
The following Rimisp partners and staff contributed to producing theresults shown in this presentation:
Julio A. Berdegué, Chiara Cazzuffi, Javier Escobal, Leopoldo Fergusson, Ignacia Fernández, Camila González, Tatiana Hiller, Ana María Ibañez,
Cristian Leyton, David López, Félix Modrego, Angela Penagos,Felicity Proctor, Juan Mauricio Ramírez, Eduardo Ramírez, Ivette Rapaport,
Thomas Reardon, Santiago Satizabal, Isidro Soloaga, Juan Soto, Andrés Tomaselli, Miguel Uribe, and Milena Vargas.
Rethinking Latin America’s rural shift
Ignacia Fernández – [email protected]
Angela Penagos – [email protected]
Julio A Berdegué – [email protected]