County Galway Rural Resource Study

January 2005

Authors

Jim Frawley, Teagasc, Rural Economy Research Centre
Noel O’Meara, Galway Rural Development Company
John Whirisky, Teagasc, Rural Development Resource Centre, Athenry

Acknowledgements
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Rural Development Perspective
Chapter 3 Methodology
Chapter 4 Findings, Economy of Different Rural Areas
Chapter 5 Findings, Demography
Chapter 6 Servicing Rural Areas
Chapter 7 Rural Community and quality of life
Chapter 8 Summary, Conclusions and implications
Future Actions
References
Appendix Tables

Study Sections

Introduction

In the past decade the exceptionally rapid rate of change in population structures and economic activity has transformed many rural areas. Areas close to urban centres generally experienced increases in population and in economic and social activity while some remote areas experienced a decline. These distinctively opposing changes have different impacts on rural communities and those living in them. As a result adjustment is most likely required, not only for individuals and households in rural communities but also for the economic and social supports of rural areas. The rationale for this study is to examine how different rural areas adjust and respond to change and how households in different circumstances are affected.

Background

A review of the major economic, population and farm level changes that have impacted rural areas is presented. In 1993 the national labour force was 1.403 million with an unemployment rate of almost 16 percent. By 2001, the labour force had already risen to 1.782 million (an increase of 27 percent) with 3.6 percent unemployment. Changes of this magnitude were reflected in other ways, such as increased earnings and expenditure and in the Gross National Product. Between 1993 and 2001, GNP increased by 83 percent which is unprecedented in recent times and earned the Irish economy, the so-called label of the ‘Celtic Tiger’. While these general trends reflected an economy as a whole, there were major differences between sectors. Industries such as IT and construction made major advances in the period; by comparison in agriculture, forestry and fishing the rate of growth was low (CSO,2003). Similarly the benefit of the Celtic Tiger was not spread evenly across regions; the Dublin and East region in particular gained in economic strength, while more rural regions including the Border, Midland and Western regional economies did not accelerate at the same rate. These economic trends in sectors and regions, had implications in terms of demographic and population changes in local communities. Between 1996 and 2002, the population of the state increased from 3.626 million to 3.917 million an increase of 8 percent which represented the highest rate of growth since the 1970’s. However there are major differences between regions. In Electoral Divisions (ED’s) close to the main urban centres there was a remarkable level of population increase, in many cases up to one-third. Alongside those remarkable increases were equally significant decreases. In County Galway alone, three ED’s reported a decline in excess of one-quarter in the six-year period. It is obvious that a major restructuring of settlement patterns has taken place in recent times. The knock-on effects of changes of these magnitudes have consequences for communities and the services and agencies that support them. Communities with increased populations most likely require additional social infrastructure such as housing, schools, and roads while the challenge for communities with declining population is to maintain an acceptable level of social service. With respect to agriculture, there were major changes since the early 1990’s. In 1992 the McSharry reform fundamentally changed the direction of EU farm policy. Agricultural support was shifted towards direct payments to support farm incomes. Increased production was not encouraged. By 2002 direct payments comprised 90 percent of family income as compared with 27 percent in 1993 (NFS 1993, 2002). Under Agenda 2000 further reform to CAP has occurred where payments will be de-coupled from production in 2005, breaking the link between farm support and output. Despite these policy changes, farm incomes remain static and in relative terms, are falling behind incomes in other sectors. Parallel with these income changes, there has been a substantial decline in the numbers at work in agriculture and a swing towards part-time farming. For instance between 1995 and 2002, the number of persons at work fell from 293,000 to 240,000 or a decrease of 18 percent. Similarly, the proportion of part-time farmers increased from 36.5 percent in 1995 to 48.1 percent in 2002. Clearly there were major changes in the agricultural economy in recent years, which has impacted not only on farm households but the social and economic environment of rural areas.

It was in the overall context of change that the present study was conceived and initiated. While the stimulus for the study arose from Teagasc, (the main agency), it became obvious that the income problems of many farm households could not be solved through farming alone. A broader view of agriculture with a focus on the household instead of the traditional focus on the farm would be required. This change in approach is best demonstrated in the introduction of the new Teagasc programme, Planning Post Fischler, where the viability of the farm household rather that the family has priority.

Objectives of Study

To identify different types of rural area, at sub-county level, in terms of the natural resource base, economic base and proximity to urban areas and how different rural areas respond and adjust to changing economic and social conditions.
To identify different types of households (farm and non-farm), and to examine the current determinants of household viability, how they adjust to changing circumstances and how different policies and service delivery agencies support or hinder their adjustments.
To provide an information base to assist policy formulation and development strategies for different types of rural areas

Agencies involved in study

The view adapted by Teagasc to broaden their customary engagement with farm families beyond the farm dimension was in line with emerging changes in EU farm policy to include a stronger rural development pillar. This change by Teagasc was favourably viewed by other agencies involved with rural development and a number in Co. Galway became involved not only in providing resources for the project but also in terms of planning and steering the operation. Galway Rural Development (GRD), a combined Leader and Area Partnership programme based in Athenry became joint partners with Teagasc in an agreed project and a staff member from GRD was seconded for much of the project duration.

It was agreed that the focus of the study should include all types of households in different rural areas. In the course of developing the objectives and approach of the project, Galway County Council, who already had plans to support the Teagasc Farm Opportunities Programme, had a research component to examine the impacts of change in contrasting communities in the county. Galway County Council through the auspices of the County Development Board included the study as an objective under the Galway County Strategy (2002-2012). Other agencies who were interested and supported the project were Údarás na Gaeltachta & Cumas Teoranta (Gaeltacht Partnership Company).