|
Istanbul: follow-up to Istanbul ...
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
-
Subject: Istanbul: follow-up to Istanbul ...
-
From: eForesee/Istanbul
-
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:08:17 +0100
Thanks for those inputs Heiki,
> Indeed we had stimulating workshops in Istanbul. I participated the
multifunctionality
> session. Here at home I have discussed the "Istanbul conclusions" paper,
just delivered
> by Patrick, with prof. Hilkka Vihinen (also working in our institute) and
I think her comments
> are valuable. I believe some possible weaknesses of the conclusion paper
could be avoided,
> or at least one could mitigate the feeling of the possible problems, with
the help of the comments
> below. However, we both agree that the conclusion paper has many strong
points.
> best regards,
> ...
> Here are some general comments on the draft for 'Conclusions of the
e-Foresee
> Istanbul Workshop on the Future of Agriculture in the EU25+'
> 1) Foresight is essential for rural governance in the sense that it could
provide
> knowledge and intellectual horizon for broad strategies at regional level.
This
> would entail multisectoral approach to the potentials of the region, and
e.g.
> agriculture should be integrated to the overall future functioning of the
region.
I think we can all agree on this and it echoes remarks that were made in out
discussions in Istanbul.
It seems however that it shoud be made much more clear in the conclusions
...
> 2) As to multifunctional agriculture and to the European Model of
Agriculture,
> these are important political concepts which, however, are not as such any
> kind of operational tools at local or regional level unless
'sustainability' or
> 'multifunctionality' have been interpreted and accepted at a local and
regional level.
This was the idea behind a generic foresight on 'sustainble rural economies'
...
We did not develop this idea in much detail ... but the idea was that it
should be carried
out at a locallevel .. and not at an EU level ... avoiding a top down
approach as also
mentioned by the commentator.
> 3) Based on my knowledge on rural development, I do not believe an
> agriculture-based approach to the rural economy of the accession countries
> will work out well. The most urgent thing would be to ensure that at least
> someone would remain in those rural areas: it is a much broader social and
> cultural issue, and it requires facilitating the commitment of the local
people
> to reconstruct their local and regional economy. Agriculture should
contribute
> to this, but it would not be enough alone.
I think there is geneal agreement on this as well, but clearly it needs to
be
brought out more clearly better in the document..
> 4) In the paper, there is a strong implicit presumption that rural
viability
> schemes would be a tool to supplement farm incomes - this is a political
failure.
> You cannot base any kind of successful rural policy on the basis of income
> support to one rural industry of profession: the society in large will not
pay for this.
My feeling is that this issue requires some discussion ... in that political
failure or
not ... rural viability schemes are an important part of the 'system'
already in place
and are unlikely to be phased out overnight. They can be considered a form
of 'dole'
and they fail to address the need to innovate or move into other forms of
business ...
and society does pay for it already ...
I am inclined to think that it is unrealistic to leave it out of the
discussion ... but that we could
try to explain better why it is a failure, the need for ths to change and
outline possible ways
in which it could be replaced by something else ...
What do the others feel about this?
5) In the suggestions made in the paper, one problem is the top-down
approach.
> There are many sentences underlining the importance of the cooperation
among
> the government, the public and their major stakeholders, but a touch to
the
> concrete life of the rural people is missing. It has been shown too many
times
> that policies implemented from outside are very costly and hard to
administer.
> If peristent changes are exptected, it is crucial to involve the local peo
ple to
> the formulation of strategies and also to the implementation of the plans.
Then
> the approach chosen would most probably be much more small- scale,
> heterogenous, recognising also tacit knowledge in addition to adjusting
the
> kind knowledge-based solutions presented in the paper. Without local
> commitment it will not work.
You are right to emphasise this. We need to add in something that
distinguishes
actions that need to be taken on different scales and what they can hope to
achieve.
The generic foresight actions that were presented were all intended to be
carried out at local level ... I think one way of improving the presentation
would
be to emphasise that different kind of actions could be appropriate at EU,
national
and regional level ...
I will do an update that attempts to take these points into account.
If anyone has suggestions for texts then please let me know.
Regards
Pat
 
[ foresight in cyprus ] [ foresight in estonia ] [ foresight in malta ]
[ conferences and events ] [ mailing lists ] [ foresight links ] [ search ]
[ home ] [ about foresight ] [ contact us ] [ web discussion ] [ user area ]
Design, hosting and programming by  AcrossLimits.
|
