DEVELOPMENT AND RURAL TOURISM

Abstract

This research studies the rural development public policy and the rural tourism activity in Rosana and Presidente Epitácio municipalities in São Paulo State/Brazil and Santiago de Compostela and Padrón municipalities in Galicia/Spain. Thus, the general objective is to analyze the tourism territorialization process in rural areas and compare public policies for rural development based on case studies in the Pontal do Paranapanema region in the State of São Paulo and the Autonomous Community of Galicia/SP. The methodological procedures used comparative analysis, highlighting the experience of two Spanish municipalities, Santiago de Compostela and Padrón, to draw similarities and differences with the Brazilian cases. The main results obtained in Brazil derived from the actions of the National Program for the Strengthening of Family Agriculture (PRONAF). The research in Santiago de Compostela and Padrón identified the presence of rural tourism houses, which were restored through subsidies from European Union rural development policies.

Keywords:
Tourism in the Countryside; Local Development; Public Policy

Resumo

Esta pesquisa tem como objeto de estudo as políticas públicas de desenvolvimento rural e a atividade de turismo no espaço rural dos municípios de Rosana e Presidente Epitácio, ambos no Estado de São Paulo/Brasil e nos municípios de Santiago de Compostela e Padrón, em Galícia/Espanha. Para isso o objetivo geral é analisar o processo de territorialização do turismo no espaço rural e confrontar as políticas públicas de desenvolvimento rural a partir de estudos de casos localizados na região do Pontal do Paranapanema, no Estado de São Paulo e na Comunidade Autônoma da Galícia/ES. No que diz respeito aos procedimentos metodológicos, foram utilizadas a análise comparativa ressaltando a experiência de dois municípios espanhóis, que foram Santiago de Compostela e Padrón para traçar as similitudes e diferenças com os casos brasileiros. Os principais resultados obtidos no Brasil foi o Programa Nacional de Fortalecimento da Agricultura Familiar (PRONAF). Das averiguações em Santiago de Compostela e Padrón, identificou-se a presença de alojamentos de turismo rural que a partir das subvenções oriundas das políticas de desenvolvimento rural europeias foram restauradas

Palavras-chave:
Turismo no Espaço Rural; Desenvolvimento Local; Políticas Públicas

Resumen

Esta investigación tiene como objeto de estudio las políticas públicas de desarrollo rural y el turismo en el espacio rural de los municipios de Rosana y de Presidente Epitácio, ambos en el estado de São Paulo/Brasil y en los municipios de Santiago de Compostela y Padrón en Galicia/España. Para esto el objetivo general es abordar y analizar el proceso de territorialización del turismo en el espacio rural y confrontar las políticas públicas de desarrollo rural a partir de estudio de casos localizados en la región del Pontal del Paranapanema, en el estado de São Paulo y la Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia/ES. En lo que dice respecto a los procedimientos metodológicos, fueron utilizadas el análisis comparativo resaltando la experiencia de dos municipios españoles, que fueron Santiago de Compostela y Padrón para trazar las similitudes y las diferencias con los casos brasileños. Los resultados principales obtenidos en Brasil fueron la presencia del Programa Nacional de Fortalecimento da Agricultura Familiar (PRONAF). De las averiguaciones en Santiago de Compostela y Padrón, se identificó la presencia de los alojamientos de turismo rural que a partir de las subvenciones que derivaban de las políticas de desarrollo rural europeas fueron restauradas.

Palabras-clave:
Turismo en el Espacio Rural; Desarrollo Local; Políticas Públicas

INTRODUCTION

The process of territorialization of rural development policies and the insertion of tourism activity in rural areas in the rural settlements of Nova Pontal and Porto Maria in the Brazilian municipality of Rosana/SP), Porto Velho, and Lagoinha in the municipality of Presidente Epitácio/SP, and the Galician municipalities of Santiago de Compostela and Padrón, is related to agricultural strategies that resulted in the introduction of non-agricultural economic activities in rural areas.

Studies of rural development policies, such as the National Program for the Strengthening of Family Agriculture (PRONAF) through the insertion of tourism activities in rural areas in the settlements mentioned above, contributed to knowing their reality. A parallel is also drawn in investigating policies exogenous to the Brazilian territory, such as the Liaison Entre Actions de Développement de L'Economie Rurale (LEADER) program covering the cases of Santiago de Compostela and Padrón, in Galicia, Spain.

Rural development policy in Europe is strictly related to minimizing the weakening of some regions, mainly to limit migration from territories and, consequently, avoiding the emergence of unpopulated rural areas. Thus, the interest in developing rural areas involved the best use of the territory and preserving their cultural, traditional, and patrimonial features. The result was heavy investment in rural tourism projects and the opening of rural tourism houses, which will be addressed below in a comparison of the practice of rural development policies between the Galician and São Paulo cases.

The time frame for the Spanish area was based on the launch of the LEADER program in 1991. Broadly speaking, it was a reformulation of public rural development policies hitherto existing in Europe and which also impacted the creation of public policies in other countries, especially in Latin America, including Brazil. Therefore, the period from 1991 to 2013 for the LEADER phases in Spain was delimited.

In Brazil, PRONAF is the rural development policy that encourages tourism in rural areas. So, the Brazilian time frame is from 2003 to 2013, when this program created particular modalities to allocate resources, such as tourism in family farming.

Regarding the comparative analysis, according to Sartori (1999), it is necessary to establish the comparative strategy to be adopted. Thus, the strategy selected highlighted the similarities and differences in the public policies for rural development and tourism in the Brazilian and Spanish cases.

Clearly, there are differences in the historical and cultural process of the selected areas; however, the comparative analysis intended to verify Spanish practices that could contribute to the improvement of rural development policies involving Brazilian tourism.

PRONAF'S RURAL TOURISM IN FAMILY FARMING PROGRAM IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF TOURISM IN ROSANA/SP AND PRESIDENTE EPITÁCIO/SP

According to Buainain, Romeiro, and Guanziroli (2003), Brazilian agriculture underwent transformations in the 1970s and 1980s like those in developed capitalist countries. In the 1970s, it was believed that the so-called "agricultural issue" had been superseded by the modernization process based on mechanization and the use of selected seeds and chemical inputs, also known as the Green Revolution. In the 1980s, it was claimed that this modernization would integrate agriculture with the industrial, commercial, and financial sectors, creating "agro-industrial complexes."

For Gonçalves (2004), the Green Revolution brought transformations in power relations through technology in rural areas, in which

the rural world of the green revolution with its hybrid seeds and its latest developments of transgenic biotechnology and no-tillage is undergoing profound ecological, social, cultural, and, above all, political changes. As the technical-scientific component becomes more important in the production process, the greater the power of high-tech industries that start to command the standardization processes (called quality standards) (GONÇALVES, 2004, p.7, emphasis added).

The modernization of agriculture from 1960 to 1980 transformed labor relations in the field, "replacing the permanent worker residing on the rural property with the temporary worker residing in rural neighborhoods or the periphery." Gradually the worker was replaced by "mechanization and chemification in all possible agricultural productions. Excess labor was driven to migrate to regions that demanded employment, intensifying Brazil's rural exodus (GUANZIROLI et al., 2001, p. 33).

Concerning the family farmer's agricultural occupations on their property, growth resulted from the existing family production scenario. PRONAF's creation was a reaction to the problem of the family farmer since it would be illogical to increase the number of farmers through the agrarian reform program if those already in the countryside were abandoning it for lack of government support. Thus, at first, PRONAF did not balance the producers' exit from the countryside (GUANZIROLI et al., 2001).

According to Schneider, Mattei, and Cazella (2009) and Ortega (2008) in 2003, some additional modalities were created to allocate resources to particular groups, such as:

• PRONAF Food: special credit to encourage the production of five basic foods of the Brazilian diet (rice, beans, cassava, corn, and wheat). Producers would have an increase of 50% in credit compared to the previous harvest for the cultivation of these products.

• PRONAF Semi-arid: credit for producers located in the semi-arid region for the construction of water works such as cisterns, irrigation dams, waterholes, and water desalination plants.

• PRONAF Mulher: aimed at women farmers who can access group C and D financing with an increase of 50% for their projects.

• PRONAF Jovem Rural: aimed at young people living in rural areas who are in their last year of technical high school and aged between 16 and 25. This public may benefit from up to 50% more funding from groups C and D.

• PRONAF Pesca: credit for artisanal fishers with a gross income of up to 40 thousand reais per year to invest in improving activity.

• PRONAF Florestal: incentivizes producers to implement forest species with sustainable management projects, reforestation, and agroforestry systems.

• PRONAF Agroecologia: Promoting projects with agroecological production or those who want to transition to sustainable production.

• PRONAF Family Livestock: Financing for the purchase of animals for livestock (cattle, goats, and sheep).

• PRONAF Turismo na Agricultura Familiar: Financing for rural producers to develop tourism projects on rural properties such as inns, restaurants, and colonial cafes, among others. This credit line is the core of our research and will be analyzed below.

• PRONAF Machinery and Equipment: Financing for purchasing machinery that improves production and productivity.

PRONAF's Rural Tourism in Agriculture modality has an institutional document called Rural Tourism in Family Agriculture Program covering 2004 to 2007. This program is a partnership between the Ministry of Agrarian Development (MDA) and the Ministry of Tourism (Mtur) in a joint action encouraging activities in rural areas to bring financial return and improvements in the quality of life of rural landowners and the community as a whole.

PRONAF investment in the municipalities of Rosana/SP and Presidente Epitácio/SP underlines whether rural tourism appears in its proposal over time (2003 and 2013).

According to data from the Central Bank of Brazil (BCB), available in PRONAF's Statistics Yearbook of Rural Credit, in 2003 and 2013, financing was granted for the agricultural and livestock modalities.

Thus, the resources allocated to agriculture were for planting cotton, rice, potatoes, coffee, sugarcane, beans, tobacco, cassava, corn, soybeans, and other crops (BRASIL, 2013).

Investment in livestock was for the purchase of animals, processing or industrialization, acquisition of machinery and equipment, and purchase of vehicles, among others.

In the State of São Paulo, PRONAF mainly funded the agricultural and livestock sector from 2003 to 2013, notably the first years, with 91.27%, 87.6%, and 83.9% of spending, respectively (BRASIL, 2015; BRASIL, 2013).

Comparing the number of PRONAF contracts at the national level in relation to the State of São Paulo (2003 to 2013), the following percentages were obtained: 2.26%, 1.96%, 1.27%, 1.20%, 1.59%, 2.08%, 2%, 2.12%, 2.15%, 1.83% and 1.73%, respectively (BRASIL, 2015; BRASIL, 2013). Table 1 shows the evolution of the number of contracts over the period with variations at the municipal, state, and national levels.

Table 1
Numbers of PRONAF contracts granted. Source: Brasil (2013); Brasil (2015). Org.: Author (2017).

Year	Presidente Epitáclo – SP	Rosana	State of São Paulo	Brazil
2003	167	14	22,718	1,003,837
2004	246	292	26,402	1,345,713
2005	414	188	28,256	2,208,198
2006	481	163	30,734	2,551,497
2007	324	225	30,639	1,923,317
2008	310	138	32,322	1,550,749
2009	377	160	35,122	1,704,947
2010	285	72	33,729	1,585,486
2011	304	149	33,197	1,539,901
2012	203	92	33,526	1,823,210
2013	392	150	34,469	1,988,234

The MDA document with information from states and municipalities regarding agricultural production and PRONAF credits released was also analyzed. The Pontal do Paranapanema region had 8.29% of the number of contracts granted compared to the State of São Paulo from 2003 to 2013 (BRASIL, 2015; BRASIL, 2013).

During 2003, PRONAF contracts in Rosana/SP were relatively low compared to the other years, but over time they oscillated, with peaks during 2004, 2005, and 2007, of 17.7%, 11.44%, and 13.69%, respectively (BRASIL, 2015; BRASIL, 2013).

Likewise, between 2003 and 2013, compared to the State of São Paulo, the years mentioned above are noteworthy, with 1.13%, 0.64%, and 0.74%, respectively (BRAZIL, 2015; BRAZIL, 2013).

Comparing the municipality of Rosana to the Pontal do Paranapanema region, approximately 5.96% of contracts were approved (BRASIL, 2015; BRASIL, 2013).

In 2003, PRONAF contracts in Presidente Epitácio/SP were the lowest when the other years are considered. However, like the Rosana municipality, there were peaks and troughs, especially in 2005, 2006, and 2013, with 11.8%, 13.73%, and 11.2% of contracts executed. Compared to the State of São Paulo, from 2003 to 2013, the same three years stood out, with 1.60%, 1.65%, and 1.29%, respectively (BRASIL, 2015; BRASIL, 2013).

The municipality of Presidente Epitácio has more than double the number of contracts as Rosana municipality in the Pontal do Paranapanema region, achieving approximately 12.71% of the signed contracts (BRASIL, 2015; BRASIL, 2013).

Information was sought on the Secretariat of Family Agriculture and Agrarian Development website to analyze rural tourism linked to family farming. This secretariat is subdivided into further sub-secretariates, including Planning and Management, Rural Development, Agrarian Reordering, and Family Agriculture.

The Special Secretariat for Family Agriculture (SEAF) is part of the SAF and responds directly to proposals related to rural tourism. SEAF has actions and programs in the following modalities: Agroindustries, School Food, Technical Assistance and Rural Extension (ATER), Biodiesel, Declaration of Fitness to PRONAF, PRONAF, Harvest Guarantee, More Food, More Management, Food Acquisition Program (PAA), Price Guarantee Program for Family Agriculture (PGRAF), Special Projects, Family Agriculture Insurance, Family Agriculture Seal, Sociobiodiversity, Brazilian Talents and Rural Tourism (BRASIL, 2003).

According to SEAF, the Rural Tourism program encourages the diversification of production and family income, especially with differentiated agribusiness, tourism, and handicrafts products (BRASIL, 2003), fostering the creation of tourist routes aimed at enhancing family farming.

The SEAF states that tourist itineraries have been successful experiences; however, no documents were found at the secretariat that would allow us to analyze this information. Furthermore, the existing webpage links do not work, making any analysis of existing rural tourism projects unfeasible. It is worth mentioning that this information was not found because the MDA was extinguished by Law No. 13.341, of September 29, 2016 (BRAZIL, 2016).

Although the document was not available on the SEAF website, a version called "Rural Tourism Program in Family Agriculture 2004/2007" was found online, which is used in our analysis.

It consists of a highly simplified report describing the program during the period 2003 and 2006, considering social demands, actions during the first term of the Lula government, and the generation of work and income.

This program's principles were: 1) Valuing farmers' cultural and natural heritage and their productive system; 2) Involvement with agricultural production; 3) Insertion of farmers and organizations, safeguarding gender, generational, race, and ethnic relationships; 4) Shared management among participants; 5) Construction of institutional partnerships; 6) Tourism activity in complementarity to agriculture; 7) Understand and respect the different realities of Brazilian family farming and their singularities; 8) Participatory planning and decentralized management (BRAZIL, [2008?]).

The target public were conventional family farmers, agrarian reform settlers, forest extractivists, riverine dwellers, Indigenous people, quilombolas, artisanal fishers, forest peoples, rubber tappers, and others (BRAZIL, [2008?]).

The main program guidelines were Training, Infrastructure, Legislation, Marketing, and Management. The training focused on the improvement and quality of the tourist service offered, considering the appreciation of existing agricultural activities and the self-esteem of the producer (BRAZIL, [2008?]).

Technicians and farmers were trained, and during 2004 and 2007, the latter represented 24.44%, 24.96%, 25.18%, and 25.40% of agricultural producers, respectively. Although not mentioned in the source document, it is believed that these data refer to the development of the program at the national level (BRASIL, [2008?]).

The participation of rural communities was crucial to the program. The training strategies included raising their awareness of the importance of planned and integrated tourism that valued local talents; developing actions to train multipliers to carry out the program; preparing courses and technical visits to train technicians, farmers, and leaders for tourism; and preparing educational materials for the public. The intention was to contribute to knowledge about the project and perception of rural tourism (BRASIL, [2008?]).

The actions' guidelines were financed by PRONAF training, other lines of subsidies from public institutions, and other state programs for developing and relocating labor (BRASIL, [2008?]).

The objective of the infrastructure guideline was to adapt and implement the basic and tourist infrastructure necessary to develop tourism, mainly based on social, cultural, environmental, and territorial responsibility (BRAZIL, [2008?]).

There was an annual average of 76 collective basic infrastructure projects. From 2004 to 2007, 19.73%, 25.65%, 27.63%, and 26.97% of the available sum for this guideline were spent in this modality.

According to data from the program mentioned above, 24,052 family farmers in Brazil benefited from infrastructure under this directive between 2004 and 2007. An average of 1,278 projects were approved in private or individual infrastructures. The analysis of these data showed a rise in the years 2004 to 2007, the latter had the highest percentage of approved projects, with 24.07%, 24.85%, 25.24%, 25.83%, respectively

This guideline's main strategies were to provide credit lines for the implementation, increase, adaptation, and restructuring of rural properties for tourism. In addition, it enabled lines of financing for collective and/or private infrastructure linked to rural tourism (BRASIL, [2008?]). The resources for these actions came from PRONAF infrastructure, state programs, and tourism incentive funds.

The legislation guideline was intended to establish norms and procedures to guide and encourage rural tourism in family farming. Also, it aimed to guide and inform about changes in legislation related to rural tourism, mainly applied to family farming. It similarly encouraged other legislative instances to corroborate with tourism and identify and propose federal, state, and municipal incentives for the development of the activity (BRASIL, [2008?]).

The marketing guideline aimed to introduce farmers to the tourism market, integrating rural tourism's services and products in federal, state, or municipal instances (BRASIL, [2008?]).

The main strategies for this guideline were to insert rural tourism products and services offered by farmers in Local Productive Arrangements (LPAs); formulate technical materials that would open up new markets; promote and disseminate farmers' tourism products and services through events and promotional material; and to take advantage of public equipment for the commercialization of products (BRAZIL, [2008?]).

The management guideline focused on a management model based on articulation, participation, and solidarity among those involved. Its main strategies were the articulation between public and private institutions and the construction of networks between farmers and institutions linked to tourism, whether at the municipal, regional, state, or national levels. It also included the involvement of Technical Assistance and Rural Extension services in rural tourism projects, monitoring and evaluating the program, creating a program information system, creating management groups with functions and themes defined for optimal program management, constant evaluation of the program to minimize adverse effects, and participatory monitoring giving the farmer the autonomy to decide on what is being offered (BRASIL, [2008?]).

The program's institutional arrangements relied on the Ministry of Tourism since its proposal was linked to the 2003-2007 National Tourism Plan. At the strategic level, it was composed of the Ministry of Tourism, the National Council of Tourism, and the National Forum of State Secretariats and Directors of Tourism (BRAZIL, [2008?]).

The document refers to hierarchical levels among the participating institutions; nevertheless, there is theoretical support for dialogue between those involved. In particular, decentralized management, where family farmers' organizations are represented on Municipal Tourism Councils, promoted as a new decentralized management model for the National Tourism Plan.

The participating Councils are deliberative bodies that manage the program, as they can decide, establish partnerships between institutions, and control the program's goals.

In general, inferences can be made about PRONAF based on the analysis of documents issued by the Central Bank of Brazil on Brazilian rural credit. Namely, there is no record of rural credit specifically for the rural tourism modality in Brazil or the municipalities of Rosana and Presidente Epitácio.

The analysis of MDA documents on PRONAF credit granted to rural producers in the municipalities of Rosana and Presidente Epitácio does not report any rural tourism activity. According to the description of the documents examined, the financing was for infrastructure and productive restructuring.

The document "Rural Tourism Program in Family Farming 2004/2007" analyzed here does not give the locations where these resources were invested.

THE LEADER PROGRAMME IN THE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT OF SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA AND PADRÓN

Spain's agricultural policy was linked to the European Union's (EU) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Historically, until 1988, the CAP's orientation was strictly sectoral, primarily directed to farmers and agricultural companies. There were two measures: price support and intervention in agricultural product markets and, second, the transformation of agricultural structures (FAO, 2003; CAMÓS ROMIO, 2006).

With the CAP restructuring, the EU and many countries launched rural development programs, such as LEADER, focusing on the territory and diversification of activities and preserving and enhancing each territory's uniqueness.

These rural development policies have become priorities within the EU due to existing disparities and the advance of the exodus from rural areas.

Notably, the measures adopted for rural development do not solely involve material resources. They also support human resources, knowledge, productive activities, institutions, local administration, and historical and architectural heritage. All of these involve peoples, villages, and cultural heritage (folklore, traditional music, local cuisine, enology, and handicrafts) that confer identity to the territories (FAO, 2003).

In general, changes in how rural development is understood in EU policies have resulted in the creation of programs managed by local groups and, consequently, development closer to territories' needs.

Given the above, next, we analyze the LEADER documents about activities in Galicia, especially the Councils of Santiago de Compostela and Padrón, and the repercussions in those territories.

In Galicia, LEADER I (1991-1993) included four Rural Development Groups (RDG): Portodemouros, Ancares, Baixo Miño, and Monterrei (XUNTA DE GALÍCIA, 2015). It is noteworthy that some of these projects included tourist intervention. Thus, in the Galician countryside, houses were contemplated for financing to reform, restore, and rehabilitate them as rural tourism accommodation. Examples are Pazo Xan Xordo and Finca San Lorenzo.

Thirteen RDGs in Galicia benefited from LEADER II (1994-1999), Neria, Portodemouros, Terra Chá, Fonsagrada, Ancares, Rio Lor, Ribeira Sacra do Sil, Conso-Frieiras, Monterrei,Val do Limia, Paradanta, Val do Miño, and Ribeira Sacra Lucense. Santiago and Padrón, the municipalities in this study, were not in these RDGs (XUNTA DE GALÍCIA, 2015).

From the above conjuncture, LEADER II generally benefited projects linked to rural tourism, although to a lesser extent than the previous phase. However, there was an investment in small businesses, crafts and services, and an appreciation of agricultural production (SPAIN, 2011).

In the case of Galicia, LEADER+ (2000-2006) benefited 16 RDGs, Val do Limia, Pais do Bibei – Ribeira Sacra do Sil, Portodemouros, Terras do Miño, Ribeira Sacra Lucense, Valmiñor, Euroeume, Terra Cha, Rio Lor, Condado Paradanta, Montes, Neria, Ulla Umia, Terras de Miranda, Ordes, and Monterrei Verín (XUNTA DE GALÍCIA, 2015). However, the municipalities of Santiago de Compostela and Padrón did not participate in any of these groups.

The Spanish LEADER+ prioritized actions related to natural and cultural resources, local products, quality of life, and the use of information and communication technologies.

The strategic objectives of the Axis 4 LEADER program (2007-2013) in Galicia organized the groups' activities to dynamize, promote, and select initiatives to reduce their bureaucratic and management burden. The aim was also to exploit the Program's potential to advance the dynamization of Galician rural space from a district perspective, prioritizing productive projects and, in particular, innovative activities in agri-food and forestry, as well as projects meeting the needs of the rural population (XUNTA DE GALICIA, 2015).

This Program in Galicia was one of the PDR's bases. It was implemented from four axes: Axis 1 (competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector), Axis 2 (environmental improvement), Axis 3 (quality of life and diversification), and Axis 4, the application of the LEADER program's measures. As shown in table 2, the measures in Axis 4 received 10% of the investment.

Table 2
Distribution of resources by axis. Source: Xunta de Galícia (2015). Org.: Author (2017).

Investment of public funds by axis
Axis 1	46:43%
Axis 2	32.58%
Axis 3	10.37%
Axis 4	10%

Axis 4 (LEADER) had the following parameter: Measure 410 dealt with local development strategies, acting to increase the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sectors, improve the environment and the rural environment, increase the quality of life in rural areas, and the diversification of the rural economy. Measure 421 addressed transnational and interregional cooperation, and Measure 431 was related to RDG operation, capacity acquisition, and territorial promotion (XUNTA DE GALÍCIA, 2015).

The program favored 31 RDGs; included here are those where the municipalities studied in this investigation are located, especially RDGs 24 and 25, namely, the Terras de Compostela Association and the Local Development Association (DELOA).

The RDG Terras de Compostela Association is formed by the municipalities of Ames, A Baña, Boqueixón, Brión, Negreira, Santa Comba, Santiago de Compostela, Teo, Val do Dubra, and Vedra.

The projects financed were covered by Measures 411, 412, 413, and 431, each receiving 20.41%, 5%, 43.41%, 19.49, and 16.65% of the sum available. The main activities were the Promotion of Local Products, the Dynamization of the Agricultural and Forestry Sector, the Dynamization of Tourist Resources, and fostering of women's employment and creativity (ASSOCIAÇÃO TERRAS DE COMPOSTELA, 2015).

The RDG DELOA is composed of the municipalities of three districts, namely: the district of Barbanza with the municipalities of Boiro, A Pobra do Caramiñal, Rianxo, and Riveira; the district of Noia with the municipalities of Noia, Outes, Porto do Son, Lousame, and Muros; the district of O Sar with the municipalities of Dodro, Padrón, Ribeira, and Rois (DELOA, 2015).

The projects that received LEADER - Axis 4 grants in this RDG were related to Measures 411 (Diversification of the agricultural and forestry sector), 413 (Diversification of the rural economy and improvement of quality of life), and 431 B (Capacity acquisition and territorial promotion) (DELOA, 2015).

In general, the projects in nuclei with up to one hundred inhabitants represented 36% of the total projects, 100-500 inhabitants were 37%, between 500-1000 inhabitants 15%, and industrial polygons with more than 1000 inhabitants 12% (DELOA, 2015).

Two companies were subsidized by projects linked to Measure 411, one in the municipality of Rois and another in Padrón. Rois benefitted from a cattle milking robotization project. This production is essential for Galicia, particularly because 62% of the RDG's total milk production is concentrated in this municipality (DELOA, 2015).

In Padrón, the investment was for the diversification of pepper products from Herbón's horticulture. These pimentos have been recognized as a Protected Designation of Origin (Pementos de Herbón). Production is conducted by a mainly female cooperative dedicated to pimento cultivation; the subsidy was invested in new products such as marmalade and pre-fried pimentos.

Measure 413 had the most LEADER-Axis 4 projects approved, which were related to the diversification of the rural economy, aiding the creation and development of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), and improving the quality of life by providing basic services aimed at the rural population, conservation, improvement of rural heritage, and the local economy (DELOA, 2015).

According to DELOA (2015), the diversification of economic activities in rural areas benefited the following companies: SL (Outes), Talleres Picón SL (Noia), Maderas Omanda (Porto do Son), Rotogal SL (Boiro), and Agro Esparis Comercial Sl (Rois).

Service projects were carried out to improve the quality of life of the rural population, such as Tanatorio de Lousame, constructing a sports complex in Noia, creating spaces in Ribeira, and renovating the children's park in Porto do Son. In addition, people with disabilities benefited from the creation of a home in Boiro, a center for daytime activities in Noia, an integral center in Boiro, and a day center in Lousame (DELOA, 2015).

Four public heritage projects were considered significant for the development of rural areas: the conservation project of the industrial landscape of the San Finx Mines (Lousame); the recovery of the Iron Age landscape of Castro Cidá (Ribeira); the restoration of the altarpiece of the Church of Camboño (Lousame); and the trails of Porto Son (DELOA, 2015).

Regarding Measure 431 B, RDG projects were prominent in creating an image of the DELOA brand and its internal and external promotion, betting on the "DELOA, a quality tourist destination" brand. Furthermore, some activities related to the intangible heritage of rural areas were promoted, such as traditional and agri-food musical products. A traditional music contest called Interitmos (interterritorial cooperation project) had three initiatives: auditions for participants, recording the winning theme in a professional studio, and, finally, a training day to professionalize traditional music (DELOA, 2015).

Since the 1993 Jacobeu, there has been a significant boost in tourism in Galicia, increasing the number of local tourism overnight stays. After this period, tourism growth, especially in rural areas, was favored by rural development policies in Galicia and other Autonomous Communities (CC.AA).

According to Solla (2012), tourism in rural areas in Galicia has progressed significantly, so traditional rural houses have joined other establishments and typologies such as thermal tourism and monument hotels.

This growth was also due to the LEADER program's investments in Galician territory, especially in the initial stages of these programs, as there were specific measures for this activity. Table 3 shows the main measures for implementing rural tourism activity.

Table 3
Measures for rural tourism. Source: Spain (2011). Org.: Author (2017).

Content	Implementation of Rural Tourism Measures
Leader I	Measure 3 (Support for rural tourism).
Leader II	Measure B3 (Rural tourism).
Leader+	Measure 108 (Tourism).
Leader-Axis 4	Measure 413 (Diversification of the rural economy and improvement of the quality of life involving rural tourism activity and agritourism) and Measure 431B (Operating costs, capacity acquisition, and territorial promotion covering the promotion of the tourism sector).

Table 3 shows that for LEADER I, Measure 3 (Rural tourism) has the highest percentage of projects, with 59.87%, compared to the others with 15.67%, 10.97%, 7.57%, 3.76%, and 2.19%. Consequently, this measure received the highest number of investments (SPARRER, 2005).

In LEADER II, Measure B3 (Rural tourism) had 17.45% of projects, second only to measure B2 (vocational training and recruitment aid), with 37.84%. It is noteworthy that measures A (capacity acquisition) and C (transnational cooperation) had the least projects with 0.29% and 1.92%, respectively (SPARRER, 2005).

In LEADER+, Measure 106 (PEMES and services) was prominent with 19.25%, while Measure 108 (Tourism) had 12.38%. Regarding, The RDGs of Neria and Portodemouros stood out for the tourism measure, with 15.02% and 14.45% of investments, respectively (XUNTA DE GALÍCIA, 2015).

A noteworthy fact is that there were more projects in the period corresponding to LEADER II (1994-1999), that is, after the Jacobeu celebration. However, the growth of initiatives related to rural tourism was evident in the first LEADER (1991-1993), the measure had the most investment. As a result, there have been a considerable number of rural tourism projects in the last 15 years (Figure 1).

Figure 1
Numbers of rural tourism projects in the LEADER Program in Galicia. Source: Xunta de Galícia (2015); Sparrer (2005). Org.: Author (2017).

In general, there was a solid boost to rural tourism leading to the growth shown in Figure 1. Thus, from 2001 to 2013, in Galicia, there was a 26% increase per year in the supply of rural tourism accommodation (including the LEADER+ and Leader-Axis 4 periods) (INE, 2016).

It is evident that, in recent years, the number of jobs has accompanied the growth in accommodation. Job creation in Galicia peaked in 2010 with 893 new positions and a growth of 27.89% (INE, 2016).

The importance of tourism in rural areas was demonstrated in tourist accommodation occupancy rates in Galicia. From 2001 to 2013, 467 establishments were open in the region, representing an annual occupancy rate of 28.4% compared to the national one (INE, 2016).

TOURISM IN RURAL AREAS FROM THE CASES OF SÃO PAULO AND GALICIA: BETWEEN SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

The following section presents observations representing some of the similarities and differences found in rural development and tourism policies in the cases in rural areas investigated in São Paulo and Galicia.

Thus, we decided to highlight some categories present in the realities in question to recover what was brought to the discussion, especially the practice of tourism.

Regarding rural tourism development policies, Galicia benefits from the well-known European Union LEADER program, which subsidizes rural development projects. The program invested in rural Galician territory from 1991 to 2013. It is worth mentioning that the beneficiary does not pay the government for the amount disbursed, except in breach of the established rules. The payment is made daily in the practice of the approved proposals; although the opening of accommodation obtained the most funding, it is not restricted only to the economic activity of tourism in rural areas. In the case of rural tourism houses, the payment is their actual operation for at least 15 years.

The Brazilian PRONAF is a federal government program aiming to grant financing to the producer, including the settler so that they can invest in economic activities on the property and thus generate family income. Unlike the LEADER program, the PRONAF obliges the beneficiary to pay the credit granted after a fixed grace period. The interest charged by the financial institution is fixed according to the Central Bank and is lower than that of other financial institutions not registered in the program. However, it is not only a question of acquiring credit; there is a whole logic that must be developed to serve the settled rural producer because, without technical support to guide their choice of investment, there is a risk of investing in activities that do not give returns, so that the loan cannot be repaid when the deadline comes.

LEADER has contributed to the opening of rural tourism accommodation, especially in Santiago de Compostela, as this is an internationally recognized tourist destination. Differently, in PRONAF, investments focused on financing agricultural activities (costing) or related pursuits, such as purchasing machinery and inputs.

Galician public managers encouraged development by creating other programs that added value to rural tourism houses so that visitors could stay in rural areas, such as Bonos Iacobus¹, with programs for the elderly, sports, or access to restaurant services in rural tourism houses.

No other programs or projects were identified in the Brazilian cases that promote tourism development in rural areas. In the municipality of Rosana, there was a project closely linked to the political administration, but it may disappear with any possible change of government. In President Epitácio, no tourism development project or program was identified.

Given the above, no credit line was identified in the Pontal do Paranapanema region for tourism in rural areas; the settlers working with tourism have no financial investment from the municipal, state and/or federal government.

The start of tourism activity in the Galician cases was motivated by the financial support given by the government through the LEADER program. In contrast to the Galician municipalities, in Pontal, government support sought alternatives that complement family income, to reduce dependence on the fluctuations of the agricultural market. Given this scenario, some settlers decided to invest in tourism, taking advantage of the natural potential that gave their land remarkable beauty, combined with the rural way of life and agricultural and livestock production such as ponies, horses, buffaloes, and diverse plantings and local dishes. Therefore, they had no help from the government and walked alone because no tourism policy integrates the actions, although in both cases the COMTUR exists, the Tourism Master Plan and the Tourism Development Plan are being written.

As a result, the settlers' primary income source is agricultural production, and tourism is only a complementary activity. In the Galician cases, for the most part, tourism is also not the main income in rural tourism houses. It only supplements the owners' other economic activities, usually work in the urban core, and is not linked to agricultural experiences.

Agricultural activity is only pivotal in the municipalities in São Paulo since, in Galicia, the owners work elsewhere and have no relationship with the rural world or are retired. Nevertheless, in the municipality of Presidente Epitácio, there is a settlement where the main income comes from the rents of tourist ranches and, in the case of Santiago, a rural tourism house whose primary income is obtained from offering accommodation.

Having been awarded the title of Tourist Resort of the State of São Paulo, the municipality of Presidente Epitácio receives a specific budget to develop this activity. Consequently, there is a need for a dialogue between those involved to prioritize actions concerning the activity in rural areas. The participation of the community of settlers is essential, taking their needs into account and outlining the priorities for the satisfactory development of this activity. As the municipality of Rosana does not have this title, there is no guaranteed resource for tourism, only what is foreseen in the municipal budget.

Rural tourism in Santiago de Compostela and Padrón is strictly related to the Camino de Santiago tourism product. Consequently, the emergence of rural tourism houses is inserted in this logic of providing services to tourism; accommodation is offered, but there is no link with agricultural activities. Therefore, LEADER has been strongly criticized because some scholars believe that the program only funded hospitality, neglecting the development and dynamism of the rural economy.

It is worth mentioning that, on the one hand, this criticism is based on reality because the jobs generated by accommodation employ people who do not live exclusively in rural areas. Furthermore, there is no link with agricultural production, and abandoned villages have not been repopulated. On the other hand, it is undeniable that rural tourism has led to the restoration of these traditional houses of the Galician countryside, thereby protecting these people's representative heritage that would otherwise be abandoned along with the villages.

Other elements that characterize the Galician rural landscape, such as the barns, chapels, crossings, mills, and natural springs, were preserved. Due to tourism, they are present and protect the memory of those who lived in these places.

In the case of the municipalities studied in São Paulo, it is clear that the appreciation of the elements in the local countryside is renowned in the settlements of Rosana (Nova Pontal and Porto Maria). Visitors enjoy the rivers, and agriculture provides the ingredients for the coffee offered at the end of the visits or the menu of the rustic restaurant offering traditional dishes. Tourists can harvest fruit from the plant and discover where the food consumed in the city comes from and how it is produced.

Concerning tourism as appreciating the rural way of life, it seems that this added value is more visible in Brazilian cases since visitors are in direct contact with the plots' production and animal management; they can listen to the settlers' stories and ask questions about the production.

Given the above, it is evident that similarities and differences exist between the Brazilian and Galician realities, but also between cases in the same national context. These similarities and differences enabled the comprehension of the reality of the cases presented and the practice of policies, especially tourism. It was not a question of copying models but of learning about these diverse realities and analyzing the tourism strategies adopted to reverberate in the territory, supported by development, social responsibility, collective participation, and the engagement of the actors involved, among others.

From the above, Table 4 shows the similarities and differences between the cases and summarizes the aspects that characterize them.

Table 4
Comparative synthesis between similarities and differences.

Categories	Similarities	Differences
Public policies for the development of tourism in rural areas	Yes	Paulistas: it is ineffective in rural territories and disconnected from other development policies.
		Galician: There is articulation with other sectors, especially because tourism is one of the main sources of income generation, in the case of Santiago de Compostela.
Programs	There are programs	Paulistas: PRONAF is from the Brazilian Federal Government and depends on the willingness of the local financial institution to make the financing line viable to the settler. The settler must pay the financing received within the specified period.
		Galician: LEADER: It is a European Union program, and beneficiaries do not pay for funding after approval.
Programs	They exist for the modality of rural tourism.	Paulistas: Financing for agricultural activities.
		Galician: Financing for the opening of rural tourism accommodation.
Start of tourism activity		Paulistas: individual motivation to seek other sources of income.
		Galician: government incentive through financial grants
Work in the agricultural activity	Most had someone in the family dedicated to agriculture	Paulistas: the settlers maintain agricultural production
		Galicians: have no agricultural activity.
Source of income	Tourism in rural areas is not the main source of income.	Paulistas: agricultural activity is the primary source of income.
		Galicians: sundry activities are not linked to farming on the property.
Financing		Paulistas: There is no funding for tourism in rural areas
		Galician: LEADER funding
Cultural heritage	Present in both cases	Paulistas: with tourism, settlers believe that there will be an appreciation of their way of life and the natural and cultural elements characteristic of the landscape of the settlements: rivers, wild animals, cuisine, agricultural production, and animal husbandry.
		Galicians: with the subsidies, the traditional houses of the Galician countryside can be recovered, safeguarding their existence and elements linked to them, such as barns, mills, crossings, and chapels.

CONCLUSION

On tourism development policies in rural areas, in Galicia, there is the LEADER program, subsidized by the European Union, using resources for rural development projects. This program invested in rural Galicia from 1991 to 2013. Notably, the beneficiary does not repay the government for the amount disbursed, except in breach of the established rules. The payment is made daily to implement approved proposals, which are not restricted to the economic activity of tourism in rural areas, although the opening of accommodation obtained the most funding. In the case of rural tourism houses, the payment is the proper functioning of the accommodation for at least 15 years.

The Brazilian PRONAF is a federal government program aiming to grant financing to the producer and includes settlers, who can invest in economic activities in the plot and thus generate family income. Unlike the LEADER programs, PRONAF beneficiaries must repay the credit granted after a defined grace period. The interest charged by the financial institution is fixed according to the Central Bank and is lower than that of other financial institutions not registered in the program. However, it is not only a question of acquiring credit; there is a whole logic that must be developed to serve the settled rural producer because, without technical support to guide the producer's choice of investment, there is a risk of investing in activities that do not give returns, so that the loan cannot be repaid when the deadline comes.

LEADER’s various versions have contributed to the opening of rural tourism accommodation, especially in Santiago de Compostela, as this is an internationally recognized tourist destination. Inversely, in PRONAF, investments focused on financing agricultural activities (costing) or related pursuits, such as purchasing machinery and inputs. Galician public managers encouraged development by creating other programs that added value to rural tourism houses so that visitors could stay in rural areas, such as Bonos Iacobus, with programs for the elderly, sports, or access to restaurant services in rural tourism houses. No other programs or projects were identified in the Brazilian cases that would promote tourism development in rural areas. In the municipality of Rosana, there was a project closely linked to the political administration, but it may disappear with any possible change of government. In President Epitácio, no tourism development project or program was identified.

Therefore, in the case of PRONAF, despite a modality for tourism projects in rural areas, few cases benefit the subjects, mainly because the concern is still to invest in agriculture and ensure the family's survival. Given the above, no credit line was identified in the Pontal do Paranapanema region for tourism in rural areas; the settlers working with tourism have no financial investment from the municipal, state and/or federal government

No other programs or projects were identified in the Brazilian cases that would promote tourism development in rural areas. In the municipality of Rosana, there was a project closely linked to the political administration, but it may disappear with any possible change of government. In President Epitácio, no tourism development project or program was identified. Given the above, no credit line was identified in the Pontal do Paranapanema region for tourism in rural areas, that is, the settlers who work with tourism have no financial investment by the municipal, state and federal government.

Rural tourism in Santiago de Compostela and Padrón is strictly related to the Camino de Santiago tourism product. Consequently, the emergence of rural tourism houses is inserted in this logic of providing services to tourism; accommodation is offered, but there is no link with agricultural activities. Therefore, LEADER has been strongly criticized because some scholars believe that the program only funded hospitality, neglecting the development and dynamism of the rural economy.

It is concluded that rural development policies in both realities had specific measures. In the Galician districts, they led to the opening of tourist housing, while in São Paulo's cases, actions were related to infrastructure costing.

NOTE

• 1
  The Bono Iacobus is a program aimed at rural tourism houses located on the Camino de Santiago. Pilgrims are encouraged to stay in these homes. The program offers a package that includes accommodation, dinner, breakfast and car transport to the beginning of the stage in which they stopped.

REFERÊNCIAS

• ASSOCIAÇÃO DE DESENVOLVIMENTO LOCAL (DELOA). Memória LEADER: 2007-2013. Padrón: [s.l], 2015.
• ASSOCIAÇÃO TERRAS DE COMPOSTELA. Programa LEADER (2007-2013). 2015. Disponível em: http://www.terrasdecompostela.org/site/ Acesso em 10 de jan. 2017.
  » http://www.terrasdecompostela.org/site/
• BRASIL. Secretaria Especial de Agricultura Familiar (SEAF). Informações sobre o PRONAF. Brasília. 2003. Disponível em: . Acesso em 20 out. 2017.
• BRASIL. Secretaria da Agricultura Familiar (SAF). Programa de Turismo Rural na Agricultura Familiar 2004/2007. Brasília. [2008?]). Disponível em: . Acesso em 19 out. 2017.
• BRASIL. Banco Central do Brasil (BCB). Quantidade e valor dos contratos por região. Brasília: Banco Central, 2013. Disponível em: <http://www.mda.gov.br/sitemda/secretaria/saf-creditorural/base-de-dados-do-cr%C3%A9dito-pronaf>. Acesso em 18 out. 2017.
  » http://www.mda.gov.br/sitemda/secretaria/saf-creditorural/base-de-dados-do-cr%C3%A9dito-pronaf
• BRASIL. Ministério do Desenvolvimento Agrário (MDA). Relatórios sobre os municípios. Brasília: MDA, 2015. Disponível em: . Acesso em 18 out. 2017.
• BRASIL. Lei nº 13.341, de 29 de setembro de 2016. Altera as Leis nº 10.683, de 29 de maio de 2003, que dispõe sobre a organização da Presidência da República e dos Ministérios, e 11.890, de 24 de dezembro de 2008, e revoga a Medida Provisória nº717, de 16 de março de 2016. Senado Federal, Brasília, DF, 2016. Disponível em: . Acesso em 30 abr.2018.
• BUAINAIN, A. M.; ROMEIRO, A. R.; GUANZIROLI, C. Agricultura familiar e o novo mundo rural. Sociologias, Porto Alegre, n.10, p. 312-347, jul./dez., 2003. Disponível em: . Acesso em 15 set. 2017.
• CAMÓS ROMIO, M. La política de desarrollo rural en el marco de la Política Agraria Común. QDL Estudios, n. 10, p. 22-34, fev. 2006. Disponível em: . Acesso em 01 nov. 2016.
• ESPANHA. Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Meio Rural e Marinho (MARM). Rede Rural Nacional. Leader en España (1991-2011): Una Contribución Activa al Desarrollo Rural. [s.l]: Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Meio Rural e Marinho, 2011.
• GONÇALVES, C.W.P. Geografia da riqueza, fome e meio ambiente: pequena contribuição crítica ao atual modelo agrário/agrícola de uso dos recursos naturais. Revista Internacional Interdisciplinar Interthesis, Florianópolis, v.1, n.1, p.1-55, 2004. Disponível em: <https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/interthesis/article/view/604>. Acesso em 10 set. 2017.
  » https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/interthesis/article/view/604
• GUANZIROLI, C. et. al. Agricultura familiar e reforma agrária no século XXI. Rio de Janeiro: Garamond, 2001.
• INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE ESTADÍSTICA (INE). Dados populacionais. Galícia, 2016. Disponível em: . Acesso em 10 jan. de 2016.
• ORGANIZAÇÃO DAS NAÇÕES UNIDAS PARA A ALIMENTAÇÃO E AGRICULTURA (FAO). La nueva ruralidad en Europa y su interés para América Latina. Roma: [s.l], 2003.
• ORTEGA, A. C. Territórios deprimidos: desafios para as políticas de desenvolvimento rural. Campinas: Editora Alínea/ Edufu, 2008.
• SARTORI, G. Comparación y método comparativo. In: SARTORI, G.; MORLINO, L. La comparación en las ciencias sociales. Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1999, p.29-49.
• SCHNEIDER, S. MATTEI, L.; CAZELLA, A. Histórico, caracterização e dinâmica recente do Pronaf – Programa Nacional de Fortalecimento da Agricultura Familiar 1995-2003. In: SCHNEIDER, S; SILVA, M. K.; MARQUES, P. E. M. (Orgs). Políticas públicas e participação social no Brasil rural. Porto Alegre: 2009, p. 21-50.
• SOLLA, X. M. S. Los turismos de interior en Galicia: balance y perspectivas. Polígonos, Revista de Geografia. León, n. 23, p. 213-234, 2012. Disponível em: . Acesso 30 out. 2015.
• SPARRER, M. El turismo en espacio rural como una estrategia de desarrollo. Una comparación a nivel europeo. 2005. 763f. Tese (Doutorado em Geografia) - Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Faculdade de Geogarfia e História, Departamento de Geografia. Santiago de Compostela.
• XUNTA DE GALÍCIA. Agência Galega de Desenvolvimento Rural. Liñas de axudas. 2015. Disponível em: . Acesso em 10 jan. de 2016.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  04 Nov 2022
• Date of issue
  2022

History

• Received
  24 Mar 2022
• Accepted
  07 July 2022
• Published
  15 Sept 2022