Friederike Mikulcak, Jamila Haider, Jens Newig & Joern FischerLeuphana University Lueneburg

Stockholm Resilience Center

Resilience 2014, Montpellier, 5 May 2014

How to escape the trap? A systems approach to foster rural development in Central Romania

Rural Romania• Rural areas comprise 87.1%

of the territory• Rural population: 9.67 out

of 21.45 million (~45% ; 2010)

• ~60% of rural population employed in agriculture (self-employed, family farms)

• Unique natural wealth (annex species, cultural landscapes)

Central RO

Central Romania

• former Saxon area

• Traditional smallholder, low-intensity farming

• High farmland biodiversity

A typical Transylvanian landscape

What‘s the problem?• Structural poverty, high unemployment rates,

outmigration, land abandonment or land intensification development a top priority to locals

• EU accession (2007)- unprecedented disparities (competitiveness)- Challenge to achieve economic & env. sustainability exacerbated outmigration and regional marginalization

social-ecological system (SES) appears locked in

Theoretical approach: Traps• reinforcing/ self-correcting dynamics maintain system at low-

level equilibrium

• Stable state: interventions often unable to move system into a more desired trajectory

• Inflexible or dysfunctional institutions are often a main reason

Examples- poverty trap (people are impoverished by circumstances

beyond their control)- rigidity trap (institutions are highly connected and inflexible)

Factors/ drivers behind lock-in state?

Livelihoods approach

Constrasting traps and livelihoods Livelihoods approach Traps

Normative emphasis Poverty and marginality

Builds on Entitlement approach (Sen 1981), Environmental Entitlement approach (Leach 1997)

Theory of dynamical systems (Barrett et al. 2011)

Scope Individuals, households Coupled human and natural systems (SES)

Focus capabilities and capacities System dynamics

Components Capital pentagon; institutional context (mediating role of institutions in defining access to assets)

Mutually reinforcing social and ecological feedbacks; system inflexibility/ rigidity/ high connectivity; low-level dynamic equilibria across different scales (fractal)

Advantages of merging the approaches

• Livelihoods approach provides boundary terminology to build bridges between concepts

• Capitals a useful concept to cluster factors creating a trap state

• Systems approach useful to highlight interdependencies of capitals

• Importance of institutional context

• Common goals: improve development policy and practice

How applied to Central Romania?

(1) 347 short interviews in 66 villages (17 communes) of Central Romania

- State of social system (economy, infrastructure, migration) as perceived by villagers

- Suggestions of improvement by rural residents

(2) 11 in-depth interviews with key individuals (‚change agents‘) on development barriers (clustered into capitals)

Development barriers

Some of the interview partners…

Results of short interviews

26%

49%

22%3%

Young villagers going abroad

somemanymajoritynobody

26%

6%

68%

Economic activity in the villages

littlemuchnone

Bus to to

wn

Internet

Running wate

r

Asphalted

road

Sewage

syste

m

Milk co

llection point

0102030405060708090

100

Infrastructure

Percentage of vil-lages possessing service

Jobs

Support

for farm

ing

Impro

ved in

frastr

ucture

More acti

ve au

thorities

More socia

l ben

efits

Respect

rule

of law

Impro

ved ed

ucation

Different m

ental

ity

Rural deve

lopment

No more

hope0

10

20

30

40

50

Suggestions for improvement

Percentage of responses

Key barriers clustered into capitalsBarriers Capitals

• Ethnical cleavages, lack of trust and social cohesion • Lack of ‘leadership’ due to exodus of Saxons after 1990• Lack of entrepreneurship/ economic ‘mindset’

Social(bonding, bridging, entrepreneurial)

• Low income levels • lack of jobs in the non-farming sector compared to high price level

Financial(loans, income)

• Lack of skilled workers• Low quality of education• lack of vocational training

Human(skills, health, knowledge)

• low quality of roads• lack of sewerage systems and piped water• low connectivity to markets

Built (manufactured)

• Loss of agro-biodiversity Natural(ES and goods)

• Lack of information exchange between villagers, and from local authorities to villagers

• Party politics, elite capture, vote buying and corruption

Political(attitudes/ behavior influencing a regime)

• loss of traditional ecological knowledge, values and traditions Cultural (rules of society)

Findings• Central RO is poor in human, financial, physical, political

and social capital, but rich in natural capital

one of the ‘best’ development options for Central RO lies in using its natural capital

• Interdependency and spiraling up effects between capitals, for instance

H H N + + F F S

Interdependency of capitals

Conclusion• Huge ‘push’ (intervention) unlikely to move system into

more desirable state• All capitals need to be improved simultaneously • Support key individuals and boundary organisations

(spiraling up effects, knowledge transfer)

Enfors & Gordon 2008

Thanks for your attention