Have they thought about how much is based on non-profit commitment?
Sometimes I really want to ask our politicians, and those who control our funds: ”What would happen if we people stopped getting involved in volunteer work?” Research clearly shows that civic engagement is a cornerstone of a strong and vibrant democratic welfare society. By getting involved in volunteer work, we create opportunities and conditions for trust, participation and democracy. And the chance is 57 percent greater that those of us who live in our rural areas work in volunteer work, compared to those who live in a big city. Why is that?
In addition to other self-interested values, non-profit involvement also gives people the opportunity to influence social development, express their values and help solve common problems. It thus functions both as an expression of individuals' willingness to contribute and show solidarity and as a social resource that strengthens the functioning of democracy and the resilience of society. But what happens if this power begins to weaken?
When welfare retreats
We are already seeing signs of change. The welfare state is retreating in several areas, which means that more people need to be able to rely on the support of civil society. And in times of economic uncertainty and rising costs, the need for non-profit efforts increases even more. At the same time, economic gaps are widening, polarization is increasing, and democratic freedoms and rights are under pressure – both globally and here at home. It is a development that should make us stop and ask: Who takes responsibility when the state doesn't??
The Swedish research assumes that people in rural areas become involved in non-profit activities due to poorer access to public services. Where trust develops between people during a long-term struggle to meet the structural challenges that hit our local community hardest. There are many examples of how organizations in local civil societies in rural areas act to resolve a situation where, for example, the grocery store, the local school, the gas station, the bus line or the health center have been closed. However, in order for civil society to be able to contribute to local society, it needs some form of infrastructure in the form of meeting places, networks between people who are active in non-profit organizations and trust that makes people willing to get involved.
The value of the Leader method
During the latest EU programming period (2014–2023), Leader in Sweden generated voluntary work equivalent to 1,767 full-time positions. It is an enormous force that is not just about economics – it is about democracy, rights and the future of our rural areas. Ahead of the upcoming EU programming period, which starts in 2028, we now see both risks and opportunities. It is true that Leader will continue to be mandatory in every EU member state. But at the same time, there is no earmarked money for this, as in the current period, for example. It is simply up to each member state to decide what the funding should look like.
In a scenario where Leader in Sweden is given less space (read less economic muscle), it not only affects the generation that is now expected to strengthen our supply of food and other production in agriculture and forestry. It also affects the democratic aspect that civil society constitutes. If we do not have a place to work in that is also seen as valuable to invest in, and we are deprived of the opportunities that rural development through the Leader method offers - who takes responsibility for what we people outside the cities need? Who will mobilize all the commitment needed so that we who live in a place have access to services, rich leisure, communications, meeting places and development? Leader IS an important part of the infrastructure that is repeatedly said to be so necessary for civil society. And if Leader is given less space, who will ensure that sustainability in the future?
”But can’t you just move?”
”But – you can't just move if you don't like where you live,” someone might say now. And yes, you can run away from the problems, but they don't stop existing because of that.
According to the European Parliamentary Research Service (May 2025), around 57 percent of farm managers in the EU are over 55 years old and only 12 percent are under 40. This means that a majority could retire within ten years. At the same time, the EU wants to double the proportion of young farmers from 12 percent to 24 percent by 2040. A study from SLU shows that ownership change involves identity, family structure, financing and networks – and is described as central to the survival of agriculture.
We are therefore facing one of the largest changes in ownership that has taken place in modern times in agriculture and forestry. And then we wonder: Who wants or can produce food in a vacuum? Who wants to work in a local community that has been allowed to die? And can we really commit to volunteering in the long term, if it does not gain a hearing from those who have the power over the funds? Should we allow civil society's commitment to be eroded, or should we protect the force that holds our local communities together?
Maria Lundgren, Leader Skåne Mid Northwest