Proceedings of the 2006 Naxos International Conference on Sustainable Management and Development of Mountainous and Island Areas
Editor:
Dr Evangelos I. Manolas, Assistant Professor, Department of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources, Democritus University of Thrace
Printed by:
University of Crete
ISBN: 960-89345-0-8 Volume I: 960-89345-1-6
First printing: Heraklion-Crete, Greece, September 2006
Copyright © 2006
Department of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources, Democritus University of Thrace
All rights reserved.
International Conference
“Sustainable Management and Development of Mountainous and Island Areas”
29th September - 1st October 2006, Island of Naxos, Greece
THE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
President:
Manolas E., Democritus University of Thrace
Members:
Papavasiliou G., Geotechnical Chamber of Greece Bessis C., Geotechnical Chamber of Greece Kokkotas V., Municipality of Naxos
Karamanis G., Municipality of Naxos Posantzis I., Municipality of Naxos Tzouannis I., Municipality of Drimalia Manolas E., Municipality of Drimalia Houzouris N., Municipality of Drimalia Arabatzis G., Democritus University of Thrace Drossos V., Democritus University of Thrace Iliadis L., Democritus University of Thrace Karanikola P., Democritus University of Thrace Maris F., Democritus University of Thrace Milios E., Democritus University of Thrace Papageorgiou A., Democritus University of Thrace Tampakis S., Democritus University of Thrace Tsachalidis E., Democritus University of Thrace Tsantopoulos G., Democritus University of Thrace Tsatiris M., Democritus University of Thrace THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
Anagnos N., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Arabatzis G., Democritus University of Thrace, Greece
Athanasakis A., University of Athens, Greece
Batzios C., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Bezirtzoglou E., Democritus University of Thrace, Greece Rojas Briales E., Universidad Politechnica de Valencia, Spain Daoutopoulos G., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece David T., Estcao Florestal Nacional, Portugal
Dermisis B., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Doukas C., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Drossos V., Democritus University of Thrace, Greece Efthimiou P., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Georv G., Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria Goulas C., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Iliadis L., Democritus University of Thrace, Greece Kampas A., Agricultural University of Athens, Greece Karameris A., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Karanikola P., Democritus University of Thrace, Greece
Kotsovinos N., Democritus University of Thrace, Greece Koukoura Z., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Kousis M., University of Crete, Greece
Labrianidis T., University of Macedonia, Greece Leal Filho W., TuTech, Germany
Littledyke M., University of Gloucestershire, England Manolas E., Democritus University of Thrace, Greece Manos B., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Manthou V, University of Macedonia, Greece
Mavrikaki E., University of Western Macedonia, Greece Maris F., Democritus University of Thrace, Greece Matis C., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Michailides P., University of Crete, Greece
Milios E., Democritus University of Thrace, Greece Noitsakis V., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Oliver Jose-Vicente, AIDIMA, Valencia, Spain
Papageorgiou A., Democritus University of Thrace, Greece Papastavrou A., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Pavlidis T., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Poimenides E., University of East London, England Rafailova E., University of Forestry, Bulgaria
Sakelariou-Markantonaki M., University of Thessaly, Greece Scott W., University of Bath, England
Skanavis K., University of Aegean, Greece Skourtos M., University of Aegean, Greece
Smiris P., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Spartalis S., Democritus University of Thrace, Greece Tampakis S., Democritus University of Thrace, Greece Tavares M., National Forest Research Station, Oeiras, Portugal Tsachalidis E., Democritus University of Thrace, Greece Tsantopoulos G., Democritus University of Thrace, Greece Tsatiris M., Democritus University of Thrace, Greece Vlachopoulou M., University of Macedonia, Greece Zioganas C., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
The involvement of farmers in multiple business activities in the context of sustainable management and development of island areas:
The case of the prefecture of Corfu
T. Koutroumanidis1, S. Tampakis2, E. Manolas2, D. Giannoukos1, C. Stoupas1
1Department of Agricultural Development, Democritus University of Thrace, 193 Pantazidou Street, 68200 Orestiada, Greece.
2Department of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources,
Democritus University of Thrace, 193 Pantazidou Street, 68200 Orestiada, Greece.
Abstract. In order to hold the population in the countryside the Greek government encouraged the involvement of farmers in tourist activities. The government encouraged the development of agrotourism mainly as a supplementary activity for increasing income.
This paper analyzes statistical data about the prefecture of Corfu, taken from the 1991 and 2001 censuses of the National Statistical Service of Greece. They concern the employment of the prefecture’s economically active population in the productive sectors and branches. The examination of the data showed that, with a few exceptions, Corfu rapidly became a services society but such a change occurred hastily and without systematic planning. Also, the development programs LEADER II and LEADER +, whose target was to contribute to economic and social cohesion through balanced sustainable management and development of island areas, did not have the expected results.
Keywords:involvement in multiple business activities, agricultural sector, tourism, sustainable management and development, Corfu
1. Introduction
The involvement of farmers in diverse business activities is an old phenomenon directly related to the very nature of agricultural work [4].
Today, poor farmers, rural families and middle and high income farmers look for supplementary income taking advantage of the opportunities provided by development in the countryside and, in particular, tourist development [5], [9].
The involvement of farmers in multiple business activities is also encouraged by various European Union and national measures and programs. These measures aim at exploiting opportunities related to the development of employment strategies for the surplus labour force in the rural sector, reducing unemployment and, generally, increasing development prospects in the countryside [2].
Poor farmers are interested in involving themselves in multiple business activities in order to earn extra money and because this extra income helps them overcome the difficulties created by unexpected events such as natural disasters, fall of prices regarding agricultural products etc. [10]
The involvement of farmers in other branches of the economy and, in particular, tourist and trade professions, seems to fully change the social characteristics of the farming profession since the main income of these people is earned from involvement in the services sector and not from involvement in traditional agricultural activities.
For many, this is the first step before the total abandonment of the agricultural profession, while for others, agricultural activities are put in the margin acquiring, in
245
“Sustainable Management and Development of Mountainous and Island Areas”
this sense, secondary or supplementary importance.
The matter becomes even more complicated as farmers who are involved in multiple business activities officially declare themselves farmers for tax reduction purposes. Those who, directly or indirectly, give up the farming profession, are usually young people and, in particular, women [12].
For the government, tourism was a way to keep population in the countryside. At a fist stage, and, in particular, the decades of 1960’s and 1970’s, the farmers are financially supported with low-interest loans so that they can build rooms to rent and, thus, secure supplementary income. However, tourist development and the systematic turning of farmers to tourist activities, led to the flourishing of the economy of tourist rooms.
So, farmers are farmers only in name. In reality, these people are turned into entrepreneurs, that is, we have the creation of the businessman “farmer”.
Tourism became an antagonistic force to the rural sector because it deprived this sector of working hands (mainly young people) and because it deprived it of its natural successors.
The efforts to develop agrotourism, both in Greece but also in other countries of the European Union, are of great interest because what was attempted was the linking of agricultural with tourist activity with the aim that each supports the other, and without degradation of the agricultural sector at the benefit of tourism.
However, agrotourism addresses an elite market which is influenced by the social, demographic and psychological characteristics of individuals as well as by the infrastructure of particular areas [11], [8], [13], [3].
The aim should be the achievement of maximization of benefits and, at the same time, minimization of costs for the rural community as well as agrotourism [1]. In this sense, agrotourism can become the leading force for all development efforts [6].
2. Evaluation of statistical data Statistical data on the prefecture of Corfu concern the censuses of 1991 and 2001 and were taken from the National Statistical Service of Greece. They refer to the prefecture’s economically active population in
the productive sectors and branches of the economy.
The percentage variation of employment in the primary sector of production for the decades 1991 and 2001 is negative in all the municipalities and communities of the prefecture of Corfu (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Variation percentages regarding employment in the primary sector of production (censuses of 1991 and 2001) in the municipalities and communities of the prefecture of Corfu.
The highest negative variation with - 83.6% was found in the Othonon community (from 70.27% to 11.52%) followed by the St George municipality with -54% (from 44.07%
to 20.38%) and the Parelion municipality with -50.09% (from 15.83% to 7.90%).
The lowest percentage variation with -9%
(from 10.68% to 9.72%) was found in the Achillion municipality followed by the Corfu municipality with -12% (from 2.04% to 1.80%) and the Thinalion municipality with - 13% (from 41.67% to 36.11%).
The movement of the economically active population from the primary sector to the services sector is obvious in the entire prefecture. Although this can be regarded as a general tendency, nevertheless, it is something that is particularly true for the distant rural areas of the prefecture.
The percentage variation of employment in the services sector for the decades 1991 and 2001 is positive with the exception of one community and one municipality, that of Erikoussa and Kassopeon (Figure 2).
246
“Sustainable Management and Development of Mountainous and Island Areas”
Figure 2. Variation percentages in the services sector of production (censuses of 1991 and 2001) in the municipalities and communities of the prefecture of Corfu.
The highest positive variation was found in the Othoneon community with 104.68% (from 29.70% to 60.79%). High percentage variation was also found in the following municipalities:
St George with 57% (from 34.33% to 53.81%), Esperion with 49% (from 36.15% to 53.99%) and Korission with 36% (from 34.21% to 46.58%).
The Achillion municipality with 4% (from 59.11% to 61.57%), the Corfu municipality (from 71.15% to 73.01%), the Melitieon municipality with 2.42% (from 46.65% to 47.78%) and the Mathrakio community with 2.40% (from 40% to 40.96%) also have positive percentage variation but it is below 5%.
A general comment could be that on the basis of variation regarding employment in the services sector, municipalities and communities in the prefecture of Corfu could be divided into those with particularly high positive variation and into those with low or negligible positive variation.
However, it should be noted, that the second group which has low or negligible positive variation, comprises of areas with the highest employment rates in the services sector (tourism), which shows that employment in the tourist sector has increased even in the areas of the prefecture which, with regard to tourism, have traditionally been inferior.
The examination of the evolution of employment for the decades 1991 and 2001, in certain branches of the services sector which are connected with tourism reveals that:
For the communities and municipalities of the prefecture of Corfu the employment rate for the branch hotels-restaurants has increased significantly (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Variation percentages regarding employment in hotels-restaurants (censuses of 1991 and 2001) in the municipalities and communities of the prefecture of Corfu.
There are some municipalities and communities which were found to have negative percentage variation and these can be regarded as exceptions in the general trend.
These are the Melitieon municipality with - 16.27% (from 26.67% to 22.21%), the Achillion municipality with -16% (from 16.65% to 13.95%) and the Erikoussa community with -6.44% (from 23.91% to 22.37%).
In some cases, the positive variation is very high. For example, high positive variation was found in the following two communities:
Mathrakio with 197% (from 5% to 14.85%) and Othonon with 127.53% (from 8.10% to 18.43%). High positive variation was also found in the following municipalities: Esperion with 86% (from 13.79% to 25.63%), Thinalion with 79% (from 10.75% to 19.24%) and Paxon with 68.59% (from 7.96% to 13.42%). In the prefecture of Corfu the variation can be regarded negligible.
In the branch of whole-sale / retail trade and repairs, and with regard to employment, the municipalities and communities of the prefecture of Corfu have varied percentage variation (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Variation percentages regarding employment in whole-sale / retail and repairs (censuses of 1991 and 2001) in the municipalities and communities of the prefecture of Corfu.
247
“Sustainable Management and Development of Mountainous and Island Areas”
The highest percentage variation was found in the Erikoussa community with -67% (from 15.21% to 5.02%). The Kassopeon municipality and the Corfu municipality were also found to have decreased percentage variation.
However, in the branch of whole-sale / retail and repairs, and with regard to employment, most municipalities were found to have positive percentage variation. The municipalities with the highest values regarding positive variation were: Paxon with 39.25% (from 6.65% to 9.26%), St George with 36% (from 7.01% to 9.51%) and Parelion with 34.27% (from 12.08% to 16.22%).
Finally, in the branch of transportation- warehousing and telecommunications for the decades 1991 and 2001, and with regard to employment, most municipalities and communities in the prefecture of Corfu were found to have negative percentage variation (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Variation percentages regarding employment in transportation-warehousing and telecommunications (censuses of 1991 and 2001) in the municipalities and communities of the prefecture of Corfu.
The highest negative percentage variation was found in the Erikoussa community with - 58.13% (from 6.52% to 2.73%) and Mathrakio with -40.6% (from 20% to 11.88%).
The Korission municipality with 21% (from 7.27% to 8.83%) and the St George municipality with 20% (from 6.96% to 8.32%) were found to have the most important positive percentage variation.
3. Discussion – Conclusions
Corfu evolved to a society of services and land as a factor of development is exploited only for services related activities. The island’s natural environment is degraded on a daily basis.
In all the sectors of economic activity the capital invested is only partially utilized.
It is now difficult to find new farmers.
Today, agricultural land occupies about half of the island’s total area. Due to building activities and the development of tourist infrastructure the arable land in the prefecture is continuously diminished.
The development of tourism created opportunities for easy income in much lesser time than that earned from involvement in agricultural activities. Only cultivations such as olive trees are taken seriously which, it must be noted, require work for a few months only and, in particular, from November to March.
A great percentage of farmers in Corfu (62%) are directly or indirectly involved in tourist professions. The main income of farmers in Corfu comes from sources other than agriculture, mainly tourism.
Those who have declared farming as a secondary profession do not invest many workdays in the profession: 56.5% does not exceed 50 days of work and 88.8% does not exceed 99 days of work [7].
In Corfu, the programs LEADER II and LEADER + were applied. These concerned the development of tourism and the utilization of the local economy with the purpose of distributing agricultural products. The protection of the environment was also a goal, and this was realized through appropriate interventions whenever required.
The evolution of agricultural employment showed that the efforts made through the LEADER II and LEADER + programs could not bear fruit because it did not hold the rural population in the countryside. In effect, it created yet another reason for the abandonment of the agricultural sector by the young to other professions, mainly tourism.
4. References
[1] Ananikas L, Valavanidou A, Iakovidou O, Idos C, Kazana V, Kalaklis A, Lambrianidou M. Research Project on the Development of Agrotourism in the Mountainous Communities of the Province of Paionia – Prefecture of Kilkis. Thessaloniki; 1994.
[2] Brakatsoulas V. Greek Agriculture in Recent Years: 1950-2003. Athens; 2003.
[3] Emmanouilidou M, Iakovidou O, Stavrakas T, Chrisostomidis G. Demand Features of Potential Travellers in
248
“Sustainable Management and Development of Mountainous and Island Areas”
Agrotourist Destinations. Paper presented in the International Conference “Tourism in Island Areas and Other Preferred Destinations”, Chios; 14-16 December 2000.
[4] Gidarakou I. Involvement in Multiple Business Activities and Local Development. Paper presented in the ETAGRO meeting, Florina; 2002.
[5] Kazakopoulos L. Strategies for the Involvement of Farmers in Multiple Business Activities and the Development of Agricultural Areas. Paper presented in the scientific meeting “Multiple Business Activities and Agricultural Development.
Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate of Rural Economy; 1986.
[6] Kazakopoulos L, Klonaris S, Koutsouris A. The Creation of Markets as a Factor in Agricultural Development. Paper presented in the 4th Panhellenic Agricultural Economy Conference
“Competitiveness and Development of the Rural Sector: New Challenges for Greece”. Thessaloniki; 28-30 November 2000.
[7] Theodoropoulos K, Kalokardou- Krantonelli R, Manoglou E, Maroudas K, Pappas P, Tsartas P, Fakiolas N. The Social Impact of Tourism on the Prefectures of Corfu and Lasithi.
National Center for Social Research – National Organization of Tourism; 1995.
[8] Triantafyllou K. St Germanos and Alternative Forms of Tourism. The Contribution of Female Agrotourism.
Postgraduate dissertation, Department of Agricultural Studies, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki; 1999.
[9] Tsartas P. The Involvement of Farmers in Multiple Business Activities and Tourism. National Center for Social Research; 1991.
[10] Tsartas P. Tourism and the Involvement of Farmers in Multiple Business Activities. National Center for Social Research; 1991.
[11] Vlachou C, Voltsou A, Iakovidou O, Partalidou M. Mountainous and Disadvantaged Areas of Greece:
Agrotourism – Geotechnical Chamber of Greece; 2000.
[12] Zakopoulou E, Kassimis C, Kiriazi- Allison E. Family Farming. National Center for Social Research; 2000.
[13] Velasco MJP. Andalusian Women and their participation in Rural Tourist Trade.
Geo Journal. Volume 48; 1999.
249
“Sustainable Management and Development of Mountainous and Island Areas”
