THE BATTLEFIELD OF RURAL TOURISM DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF LAKE PLASTIRAS, CENTRAL GREECE

1. THE BATTLEFIELD OF RURAL TOURISM DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF LAKE PLASTIRAS, CENTRAL GREECE Alex Koutsouris Dept of Agr Economics & Rural Development Agricultural University of Athens koutsouris@aua.gr ESRS Wageningen August 2007

2. LAKE PLASTIRAS AREA, KARDITSA PREFECTURE, CENTRAL GREECE

3. LAKE PLASTIRAS • The area, characterised as LFA, comprises of 14 villages. • The Plastiras Lake was constructed in the early 60s covering a previously fertile mountainous plateau to cover the needs for water supply and irrigation of the plains and the production of electricity.

4. POPULATION EVOLUTION

5. Population • 1961 – 2001: a decline of population by 18.6%. • The main population exodus is identified in the period around the time the lake was developed (1961 – 1971: -32%) • 1991-2001 there is a considerable increase (23%). • However, field research (1999) revealed a population smaller by 20% as compared to the 8,510 inhabitants reported by the Population Census of 2001. • Furthermore, only 43% of the population lives permanently in the area, while the rest 57% resides in the area for less than 6 months per year.

6. FARMS & CULTIVATED LAND 1971-2001

7. AGR. LANDS 2001

8. Plant production • 1971 – 2001: decline in the number of farm holdings by half and of cultivated lands by almost 60%. • Agricultural land is fragmented (4.5 parcels per holding) and small sized (average of 0.33 ha. per parcel). • Fallow lands and grasslands account for almost half of the agricultural land. Productivity is low due to the fragmentation of properties and the steep sloping of the land.

9. LIVESTOCK 1971-2001

10. Animal production • 1971 – 2001: decline in the numbers of cattle by almost 30% & increase of the numbers of sheep by 16% along with a decrease of the numbers of goats by one third. • Increase in numbers of animals after 1981, associated with the various subsidies after the country’s accession to the EEC (now EU). However the numbers of animals since the early ‘90s decrease as a result of both the ageing population and the CAP reforms

11. Tourism • Despite its natural beauty, the lake area had not been considered as an important resource for the surrounding communities until 1988; then a local development plan indicated rural tourism (with emphasis on agrotourism and various forms of alternative/soft tourism) as the path to development. • Soft tourism was conceived as being the locomotive which will move (stimulate the development of) the other sectors of the local economy • Therefore, the local authorities took the initiative/risk to build 7 hostels which were finished around 1992-93 (owned by local communities but run by private entrepreneurs) and resulted in increasing numbers of visitors in the area.

12. Tourism development • Advertisement of the natural beauty of the area and investments on infrastructure (IMP, Regional Programmes etc.) and, later, private investments triggered by the local LEADER II (and thereafter LEADER+) programme changed the area making it a major tourism destination among Greeks. • By the end of LEADER II (2001) in terms of employment pre-existing the LEADER II businesses employed 257 people (148 full-time; 14 of which owed to LEADER II) while the new ones employed 241 people (162 full-time). • Nowadays, there exist in the area 31 hostels (vs. 7 before 1966 when LEADER II was introduced), 27 businesses with rooms to rent (vs. 6) and 12 restaurants (vs. 5).

13. NON-AGR. ECONOMY (2006)

14. The Local Quality Convention • Stage 1: Diagnosis (qualitative and exploration of the situation). The results were compatible with a diffuse sense of crisis (increasing disquiet for the future of the area), especially on the part of animal breeders (the major producers’ group in the area). • Stage 2: Bringing the tourism entrepreneurs together To face the situation, it was deemed necessary to bring the various stakeholders of the area together in order to discuss current problem(s) vis-à-vis the future of the area. The group of entrepreneurs involved in tourism was of major importance. Therefore, a number of meetings were held with these entrepreneurs, the initiative been taken by AN.KA.(the Local Development Agency and LEADER LAG)

15. LQC (II) • Stage 3: The idea of a ‘quality convention’ In one of the meetings the issue of quality in the tourism emerged.The idea roughly implied: a) the engagement of all the interested entrepreneurs in a scheme based on their common understanding of where they ‘ought to go’ (vision), and b) the setting up of rules which would define ‘quality’ according to their vision. • Stage 4: Facilitating the construction of the group and the convention Discussions focused on two main topics: a) the provisional legal basis of such a scheme, and b) the contents/ objectives of the convention. In addition, for establishing a distinct ‘quality standard’ in the area the issue of how to finance such a project was also raised.

16. LQC (III) • Stage 5: The emergence of the group and the convention In 1999, 16 of the entrepreneurs formed a group and elected their first committee to take further action. The local tourism quality convention • The convention aims at improving the standards of living of the citizens of the area, through the protection and strengthening of the anthropogenic and physical environment and the upgrading of tourism services. • Intermediate objectives: the preservation of the local aesthetic and consumption patterns, the protection of the natural environment, the servicing of tourists, the protection from practices of profiteering and unfair competitiveness, education and training for those engaged in tourism and consultation with experts

17. LQC (IV) • Stage 6: The autonomous function of the LQC The group worked on an autonomous basis; submitted proposals within the LEADER II programme; promoted the idea within the Karditsa Prefecture; held the first general assembly (23 members). • Stage 7: Scaling-up The LQC idea was promoted by the Centre for Strategic Planning “Pindos”& furtheradopted and adapted by the rest of the Development Agencies all over the country. Furthermore, the LQC is a mainstream action within the Greek LEADER+ programme.

18. LQC (V) • Stage 8: The evolution of the LQC In 2001 the LQC membership was 30 entrepreneurs: 43% of the accommodation businesses (corresponding to 48.5% of employees), 26.5% of the restaurant etc. businesses (46% of the employees) and 17% of ‘other’ businesses (11% of employment). • Studies {aesthetic interventions/renovations, equipment (i.e. chairs & tables etc.), local/traditional cuisine (gastronomic inheritance)}; non-formal training of staff & participation in tourism fairs • Plans: the certification and labelling of the QCT enterprises; the exploration of the prospects for the establishment of a subsidiary company for the common purchase of supplies; and, the further promotion of the QCT.

19. LQC (VI) • Stage 9: The crisis of the LQC The LQC fell in crisis for the following 3 years. The first LQC Board was turned down. The Board that took over stopped every activity of the scheme; the certification process etc. plans were frozen. • Stage 10: The regeneration of the LQC In 2005 in the general assembly of the LQC a number of the members resigned with the remaining 20 members re-electing the first LQC president. Since then the LQC has gained momentum again (participation in LEADER+, re-initiation of the certification process etc.).

20. STRATEGY • (SOFT) TOURISM AS THE LOCOMOTIVE OF DEVELOPMENT (1988) MAIN PLAYERS • DEVELOPMENT AGENCY/ LAG (AN.KA.) • NEW ENTREPRENEURS & LCQ • LOCAL POPULATION

21. AN.KA. • For AN.KA it is clear that LEADER is a chance to promote the vision of SRD through the development of quality tourism in the area: technical & social innovation (networks/clusters). • Communication gap • Gaps between theory and practice, abstract (expert and managerial) and local knowledge

22. New Entrepreneurs • “New entrepreneurs” (NOT ‘local’ investors) established in the area; have a wider experience (already worked outside the area on an entrepreneurial venture) & good educational/training assets which along with their affection to and knowledge of the area as well as the wish to contribute to SRD results in a “different/new” approach to the area, their own businesses and a vision for the future of both. • They support the certification of the local produces, the ‘initiation’ of tourists in the local tastes, and, in order to attract ‘quality’ tourists, the incorporation of quality in every aspect of their business (built environment, service, local food etc.)

23. Local population • The local population are in favour of (obsessed with) tourism (moving preferences: ho(s)tels -> restaurants -> kafeneio/traditional cafes) and see agriculture as a non-important/ not profitable and hard activity • Some took advantage of the rapid development of the area(rooms to let, taverns); but: low quality & profiteering practices (see: rooms) • They “agree” with the quality aspects introduced by the LQC but do not implement - invest • Due to the standards imposed by the programme local people feel that LEADER “is not for them”

24. Local population (II) • Among those who were able to establish a tourism-related business there seems to be an inability or unwillingness (lack of capital, skills etc.) to follow the quality standards set by ANKA (The local Development Agency managing the LEADER) and LQC (Local Quality Convention); it has also to be taken into account that local small businesses cannot really compete on quality issues with the big businesses established by outsiders - quality means the undertaking of risks. To that end ANKA is identified with the interests of the hotel owners by quite many among the local population.

25. The LQC case • The “silence” of the Lake Plastiras LQC (i.e. the crisis period) owes to the opportunistic behaviour of a part of local entrepreneurs. In the first place they joined due to the support provided to LQC members through LEADER II. Then, further personal strategies as well as political interests predominated; the latter were mainly addressed as a challenge to the first LQC president. Nevertheless, this personalised conflict obscures the two diverse approaches for local development and an effort to inactivate/marginalise the LQC adventure but without dissolving it in view of the expected LEADER+ benefits. Finally, this ‘party’ left the LQC after they either did not have further access to LEADER+ or did not wish to contribute to the LQC initiatives/activities (like the LQC actions in LEADER+) and certification.

26. AFTERMATH • Intervention (i.e. LEADER) does not follow a pre-specified linear plan of action leading to expected outcomes; intervention is reinterpreted or transformed during the implementation process. Therefore, often, members of the target group do not ‘benefit’ from an intervention; instead the beneficiaries are the ones “who are willing, able and at hand”. • This has been the case of LEADER II in Greece thus confirming the argument that “the territorial approach tends to mask inequalities and power relations between social actors within a ‘community’ by employing a consensus perspective”.