Population, territory and sustainable development

197
retention policies is interventions that simultaneously tackle their push factors and their asymmetries with
urban areas so that rural areas can also draw population. Disjointed action in one direction or the other
winds up encouraging migration towards urban areas.
The evidence systematized in the report shows that production growth can take place without a
permanent migration pull, giving rise to policies targeting rural areas that are losing population to
emigration but are short on relatively skilled labour and see seasonal shortages of unskilled labour. This
scenario differs radically from the one that existed when the rural exodus began, which has come to be
seen as an infinite supply of unskilled labour (for rural and urban areas alike). Today’s scenario is more
diverse; indeed, there are countries where labour shortages in rural areas are the norm. This is counterintuitively
concomitant with chronic rural emigration, which, moreover, mainly involves the working-age
population. The response to this paradox has to do with the mismatch between skills and seasonality. In
these conditions, policies addressing location and mobility in the countryside can no longer focus just on
the rural population. There are increasing numbers of urban residents who work in primary activities in
rural areas. The same is true (still on a small scale but much more visible in some countries) in the case of
international migrants doing seasonal agricultural work. Specific measures are needed, ranging from
operational aspects (such as feeding, housing and transporting this mobile workforce) to social protections
and migrant rights, including access to health and childcare, formal contracts, unionization and prevention
of abuse, mistreatment and discrimination.
This greater interaction between rural and urban settings calls into question the validity of policy
distinctions within rural areas. Here, the conclusions of the report are mixed. Definitions based on
gradients (which are open to various interpretations and are currently the subject of research and debate)
are, technically, more suitable because they better capture the demographic, socioeconomic and even
cultural diversity of rural areas. On the other hand, the dichotomous definition is still valid because it still
sharply reflects social inequalities and differences among rural areas.
Diversity in rural areas is crucial because homogeneous policies usually fail in the face of
heterogeneous situations, just as unequal conditions between rural areas call for actions that at least
acknowledge and take account of the peculiarities of different territories. The report lists some key factors
of rural diversity linked to territory and population mobility. One has to do with the debate over
dispersion and definitions based on gradients. Rural areas that are close to cities or to regional or national
transit corridors have production and social advantages and can be both a springboard and a benchmark
for public action (especially, services) in rural areas. The other factor concerns non-agricultural rural
employment (in a way, the flip side of primary-sector workers living in cities), which is on the rise and
offers a significant economic alternative for the future of rural territories. The number of employed
persons and the economic relevance of rural employment vary from one area to another. But in addition to
diversifying the production base these activities usually require a certain level of skill; they can therefore
help keep skilled workers in rural areas (or even draw them from urban areas, as is the case with nonagricultural
employment linked to the green economy, rural tourism and information and communications
technologies, among other sectors).
As for urban-rural asymmetries, the evidence systematized in the document concerning location
and grouping of the rural population confirms that the rural population is still highly scattered and that
this is usually linked to poor physical connectivity leading to isolation. With some exceptions, isolation is
not a barrier to emigration because information about the rest of the world circulates even in the remotest
places. However, isolation does significantly hamper the provision of basic services and access to
opportunities that are available elsewhere. Among the ways to counteract isolation are (i) promote greater
concentration of the rural population, typically in small nucleated settlements with good services and