Why Land Is Abandoned: Farming Cannot Survive Without a Local Economy
Rising fuel and fertiliser costs, the absence of local markets, and inadequate processing infrastructure explain why land in Monchique is abandoned — and what it would take to bring it back.
When we talk about abandoned land in Monchique, the conversation frequently centres on the condition of the property. We see overgrown terraces, collapsing walls, blocked access tracks and uninterrupted vegetation increasing the risk of wildfire.
The usual conclusion is that somebody needs to clear and manage the land.
That is true, but it avoids the more difficult question: how can anyone afford to do it?
Land is often abandoned not because it is incapable of producing food or providing environmental value, but because the cost of managing it exceeds the income that can reasonably be earned from it.
If Monchique wants people to return abandoned land to active management, we must examine the entire rural economy — not simply tell individual landowners to clear their properties.
The rising cost of farming
Portuguese farmers recently protested against rapidly increasing fuel costs under the slogan:
"Promessas não enchem depósitos." "Promises don't fill fuel tanks."
One farmer reported that agricultural diesel had reached approximately €1.80 per litre. He calculated that two medium-sized tractors, each consuming around 20 litres per hour, could use 320 litres during an eight-hour working day. That represents €576 in fuel alone, before paying for the operator, machinery depreciation, repairs, insurance or transport.
The Portuguese Government has extended support worth €0.10 per litre of qualifying agricultural diesel. This provides some relief, but in the example above it would reduce a €576 fuel bill by only €32. It does not fundamentally alter the economics of the work.
Fertiliser costs provide another warning. Disruption to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has affected global supplies of natural gas, ammonia, urea and other fertiliser products. Some international urea prices increased by more than 50%, and briefly more than doubled, following the disruption.
The European Commission reported that overall EU nitrogen-fertiliser prices in April 2026 were 71% above their 2024 average. European farmers remain exposed because nitrogen fertiliser depends heavily on natural gas and is traded through an international market over which individual farmers have no control.
These are not abstract international events. They eventually arrive at the farm gate as higher costs for diesel, fertiliser, animal feed, transport, machinery and building materials.
Small farms cannot continually absorb these increases, particularly when they have little influence over the price they receive for what they produce.
Can regenerative farming reduce these costs?
At Raízes da Montanha, we are exploring whether regenerative management can reduce dependence on expensive external inputs.
Every unnecessary tractor pass consumes fuel, adds hours to a machine, creates wear and can compact the soil. Repeated cultivation may also damage soil structure, reduce fungal networks, expose the surface to erosion and cause it to lose moisture more quickly.
No-till and minimum-disturbance approaches could reduce some of these costs. Maintaining living roots and permanent soil cover should help protect the ground, improve water infiltration and reduce erosion. Legumes can fix atmospheric nitrogen, while compost, animal manure and properly prepared biochar can help retain and recycle nutrients.
Grazing animals can convert vegetation into fertility and food while reducing some of the need for mechanical mowing. Gravity-fed irrigation can reduce pumping costs. Shredded eucalyptus, prunings and other suitable material already present on the farm can replace some imported mulch and soil amendments. Protecting natural tree regeneration can sometimes cost less than purchasing and planting new trees.
Nature can perform an enormous amount of useful work — but only if we design our farming systems to cooperate with it.
However, we should not pretend that regenerative agriculture is free.
No-till establishment still requires seed, equipment, knowledge and careful management. Grazing requires animals, fencing, water, veterinary care and daily attention. Compost and biochar require labour. Natural regeneration may still need protection, selection and thinning.
Regenerative agriculture does not eliminate costs. Its economic strength lies in replacing recurring purchased inputs with biological processes, locally available resources and intelligent management. It reduces exposure to prices controlled by international fuel, fertiliser and commodity markets.
That could make difficult land more manageable, but it is only part of the answer.
Producing food is useless without somewhere to sell it
A farm does not become economically viable merely because it can produce food.
Here in Monchique, small producers have very limited dependable routes through which to sell what they grow or raise. Supermarkets provide convenience and affordable food for customers, but their supply systems are generally designed around large volumes, uniform products, continuous availability and centralised distribution.
A small farm producing seasonal quantities of vegetables, fruit, eggs, meat, milk or cheese will struggle to satisfy those requirements.
When food is brought into Monchique through national or international supply chains, much of the money spent by local households immediately leaves the local economy. The farmer who maintains the surrounding landscape receives none of that value.
The problem is not simply the existence of supermarkets. It is the absence of a strong local food system alongside them.
Monchique needs ways of connecting its small producers with residents, independent shops, supermarkets, restaurants, hotels, schools and visitors. Without these connections, farmers may successfully produce food but still fail to create a livelihood.
The missing part between the farm and the customer
Market access is not the only missing link. Farmers also require places where their produce can be legally and affordably processed.
Monchique appears to have little or no readily accessible small-scale infrastructure for:
- —slaughtering and butchering livestock;
- —processing milk into legally marketable cheese and dairy products;
- —processing poultry and rabbits;
- —chilling and storing meat;
- —washing, grading, packing and preserving fruit and vegetables;
- —shared transport and distribution;
- —handling wild game intended to enter the food chain.
This particularly disadvantages small livestock farmers. Animals may need to travel considerable distances for slaughter, adding transport costs, administrative work and animal stress. A farmer may be able to produce excellent goat or sheep milk, but without access to an approved dairy cannot legally transform it into a commercial cheese.
These obstacles help explain why people may decide that working the land is simply not worthwhile.
Monchique does not merely need more people willing to farm. It needs the infrastructure that allows their work to become a livelihood. Without processing, storage and routes to market, aspiring farmers are being invited to produce into an economic vacuum.
Javali: from wasted problem to managed local resource
The lack of processing infrastructure also affects the management of javali.
Wild boar are causing serious damage to farms and restoration projects across the area. At Raízes da Montanha, they have uprooted soil, damaged terrace walls and destroyed an experimental irrigation installation.
At the same time, legally shot javali cannot simply be sold or supplied to local restaurants. Wild game entering the commercial food chain must be handled through an approved system.
That requires hygienic collection, refrigeration and traceability, followed by processing at an approved wild-game handling establishment. Commercially supplied animals require official post-mortem inspection, and every javali must be tested for Trichinella before its meat can be approved for human consumption.
A cold room by itself is therefore not the answer. What is required is a coordinated chain involving hunters, hunting organisations, trained examiners, veterinarians, the municipality, approved processors, butchers and potential customers.
With that system in place, locally shot javali could potentially:
- —supply safe and traceable local meat;
- —support local butchers and restaurants;
- —reduce carcass waste;
- —create employment and retain value within Monchique;
- —provide an economic element within a wider population-management programme.
Monchique currently has an overabundant animal causing substantial agricultural and environmental damage, but apparently lacks the infrastructure needed to transform legally hunted javali into a safe and useful local product.
That is a missed economic and land-management opportunity.
The cycle of abandonment
The relationship is becoming increasingly clear:
- —High production costs lead to low farm profitability.
- —Inadequate processing and poor market access prevent farmers from adding value.
- —Low profitability contributes to land abandonment.
- —Abandoned land accumulates vegetation and increases landscape-scale wildfire risk.
The costs do not disappear when the farmer leaves. They are transferred to the wider community through firefighting, damaged infrastructure, lost tourism, environmental degradation and increasingly expensive emergency restoration.
Preventing abandonment should therefore be understood as an investment, not merely a private responsibility imposed upon individual landowners.
What could Monchique do?
A realistic local food and land-management strategy could examine:
- —a regular and prominent local producers' market;
- —a cooperative collection and distribution service;
- —shared cold storage and refrigerated transport;
- —an approved small-scale dairy;
- —access to appropriately scaled livestock slaughter and butchery;
- —approved wild-game collection and handling;
- —public procurement of local food for schools and municipal services;
- —partnerships with restaurants, hotels and tourism businesses;
- —clearly identified local-produce sections in existing shops and supermarkets;
- —shared machinery and contracting services;
- —payments to farmers for maintaining fire-resilient landscapes.
Not every facility must necessarily be constructed and operated by the Câmara. Some could be cooperatively owned, privately operated or shared between neighbouring municipalities. However, public authorities have an essential role in bringing the participants together, identifying demand, navigating regulation and helping secure investment.
Farming creates more than food
A farmer maintaining terraces in Monchique is not only producing vegetables, fruit, meat or milk.
That farmer may also be reducing combustible vegetation, maintaining access, protecting soil, slowing water, preserving traditional terraces, supporting biodiversity and keeping someone permanently present in a fire-prone landscape.
Those services have a public value, but the market price of a cabbage, egg or kilogram of meat does not pay for them.
We must therefore pursue two objectives together.
First, help farmers reduce avoidable production costs by working more effectively with soil, water, plants and animals.
Second, rebuild the local infrastructure and markets that allow farmers to process their produce, reach customers and receive a fairer share of its value.
Regenerative farming can reduce dependency on diesel, fertiliser and repeated mechanical intervention. But it cannot, by itself, create an abattoir, dairy, cold store, inspection system or dependable route to market.
If we genuinely want Monchique's abandoned land to return to active management, we must create an economy capable of supporting the people doing the work.
Otherwise, we are not solving land abandonment. We are merely asking individual landowners to carry its costs.