16 Kasım 2008 Pazar

IAAS Türkiye’den AB Gençlik Projesi “Kırsal Çeşitliliği Paylaşmak”

5-13 Ekim 2008 tarihleri arasında dört IAAS üyesi ülkeden (Türkiye, Belçika, Polonya ve Almanya) yaklaşık 40 lisans ve lisans üstü öğrencinin katılımı ile Belçika’da “Sharing Rural Diversity” Projesi gerçekleştirilmiştir.

Avrupa Birliği Gençlik Hareketi Programları (Youth in Action) kapsamında dört paydaş ülke tarafından hazırlanan ve Belçika ekibinin ev sahipliğinde gerçekleşen değişim programına ülkemizi temsilen 2007 yılı itibariyle merkezi Ziraat Fakültemiz içerisinde yerleşik olarak kurulan ve aynı yıl itibariyle’de IAAS World (International Association of Students in Agriculture and Related Sciences)’ün resmi şubesi olarak faaliyet gösteren IAAS Türkiye üyesi 10 öğrencimiz katılım sağlamışlardır.

Belçika’nın farklı bölge, kent ve kırsal alanlarında toplam sekiz günde gerçeklşetrilen projenin amacı: Tarım alanında eğitim görmekte olan gençlerin, kırsal alanların gerçekleriyle tanışmaları, Belçika’nın kırsal alanlarınındaki çevre ve toplumun çeşitiliğini tecrübe etmeleri, problem ve zorlukların tespit edilmesi ve bu sorunlara çözüm üretmek için fikir alışveriişinde bulunulmasıdır. Ayrıca tematik amaçlarının yanısra proje kültürlerarası bir platformda bir araya geleek gençler yoluyla karşılıklı hoşgörü ve işbirliğinin tesis edilmesine katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır.

İki bölüm halinde gerçekleştirilen proje faaliyetlerin birinci kısmında takım olma, kültürlerarası karşılıklı anlayışı geliştirme, bilgi ve beceri paylaşımını arttırma, ve farklı cğrafya ve kültürlerden gelen insanları yakınlaştırmak hedefli çalışmalar yapılmıştır. İkinci bölümde ise kırsal alanların özellikleri ve çeşitlilikleri üzerinde durulmuş ve Belçika’da tarımsal faaliyet gösteren işletmeler bünysinde sezonluk işçi olarak çalışmakta olan işçi gruplarıyla birlikte tiyatro çalışmaları yapılmıştır. IAAS Türkiye, projenin ikinci bölümündeki çalışmaların tasarımı ve yönetilmesi konusunda liderlik görevini üstlenmiş olup, özellikle proje katılımcılarına yönelik çalıştay ve sezonluk işçilerle birlikte yapılan tiyatro çalışmaları konusunda en etkin rolü başarıyla gerçekleştirmiştir. Proje kapsamında AB Komisyonuna bir teknik gezi gerçekleştirilmiş olup, burada kurumları, Türkiye ve AB ilişkileri ile AB’de göçmen işgücü ve işgücü harketliliği konularında bilgi alışverişi ve tartışmlarda bulunulmuştur. Ayrıca çeşitli tarımsal işletmler (Agro-turizm, Organik koyun çiftliği, elma üretim ve paketleme işletmesi, reçel ve bira fabrikaları), taze meyve - sebze kooperatif ve mezatı ziyaret eidlerek teknik incelemelerde bulunulmuştur.

Söz konusu projenin, kırsal alan tanımın ve koşulların ülkelere göre nasıl farklılaştığının tecrübe edilmesi amacıyla 2009 yılı içerisinde aynı ülkelerin katılımı ile ülkemizde, Almanya ve Polonya’da da benzer temalarla uygulanması planlanmaktadır.

2 Haziran 2008 Pazartesi

Ecological Modernization and Rural Development - Theme II

This student report was prepared for Ecological Modernization and Rural Development Course during my Erasmus Exchange period in University of Helsinki (January-May 2008). This report graded as 4/5 by the professor. For who want to use some parts of this report please indicate in your references as:

Gürkan, O. 2008. "Ecological Modernization and Rural Development: Old Problems and New Problems: The Changing European Rural Policy Agenda" University of Helsinki, Course Report Theme 2. Web site: www.abtarim.blogspot.com

-------

OLD PROBLEMS AND NEW PROBLEMS:
The Changing European Rural Policy Agenda

The establishment of European Community was basically designed on economic co-operation and mutual control of the resources were expected to prevent political and military conflicts in Continental Europe and boost the economic growth in member states, stated by Vihinen [1]. Primary duty for European countries was to establish a common ground for agricultural policy that is very diverse from each other, to supply safe and secure food for their citizens, which were having so many problems to reach food during and after the war years. Reduced rates in production, non-stable markets for farm products and food safety problems.

On the other hand, as stated by Vihinen 1] many other interpretations have been given related to the needs of the establishment, in a general framework these were:

- Agriculture was the major employer and there was a great need to improve incomes in the sector,

- West Germany was interested on France’s industrial market and France was interested on Germany’s agricultural market,

- If agricultural policy remained in the hands of Member States, it would undermine the common policies of other sectors. Different price levels will result the countries with low price levels would have competitive advantages.

For a very first time establishment of a common market was formulized in the so-called SPAAK Report [1] [2]. At the beginning it was designed to encouraging better productivity in the food chain, so that consumers had a stable supply of affordable food, but also to ensure that the EU had a viable agricultural sector as described in the document named "The Common Agricultural Policy Explained"[3]. With other words CAP was introducing production, trade and market oriented view [1]. As believed so far, overcome of the problems mentioned above and shortcomings of disadvantage regions and family farm structure would be possible by increasing the productivity [1]. Treaty of Rome also underlines the required attention on the social structures of agriculture and the disparities between different agricultural regions. However these aims are leave a big space for interpretation [1] and as mentioned by Vihinen [1] “until the early seventies, there was hardly any common structural policy on agriculture”. There were many pages devoted to the structural and social problems in the proposals but they were not detailed and not including practical suggestions.

----------------------------------------

Figure 1: Evaluation of the CAP [1]

----------------------------------------

Authors states that, with a little good will it was possible to form these general objectives the first documented ideas of rural thinking in the framework of CAP. However, the main role of the rural areas was understood as the resource for raw material and labour to other economic sectors.

During the period of high production supports, producers were interested on high input farming because s much as they produce they were getting more support form the Community. As reference to the Jokinen's article [4], he summarizes the period between 1960s - 1990s with increased input rates in agricultural production (chemicalization and high nitrogen input/fertilization). As a result of high production by the 1980s the EU had to contend with almost permanent surpluses of the major farm commodities, some of which were exported, others of which had to be stored or disposed of within the EU[3].

Above-mentioned surplus problems, high protection in trade and social arguments about the impacts of high input farming and also the enlargement of the Community through the Southern and Nordic countries, CAP has taken to Reform Process.

First in 1968, Commissioner Mansholt (MANSHOLT PLAN), introduce a plan includes a structural policy which meant focusing on agricultural factors of production rather than production and rather than thinking in terms of different products, their prices and produced amounts. The plan was mainly constructed on production factors: Labour, land and capital [1]. However plan had been subjected to resistance and not accepted as the proposed form, it brings 3 new socio-structural directives (modernisation of farms, relocation of utilised agricultural lands for structural improvement, and guidance service and retraining of the persons works in agriculture)

Following these reform in year 1973 the improvement memorandum that brings the environmental protection to the sunlight in the CAP. These followed by introduction of the fourth socio-structural directive related to the Less Favourable Areas (mountain and hill farming). This document differs with regional and sectoral interest while others were horizontal and it was very first time that territorial approach was used in agricultural structural policy, and concept of discrimination between regions [1].

----------------------------------------

Figure 2: The CAP : from Past to Present[6]

----------------------------------------

With the joining of new member states (Denmark, Ireland, UK, and followed by Greece, Spain and Portuguese) new agenda has started. Introduction of Integrated Development Programmes and Integrated Mediterranean Programmes the idea of overcoming the regional discrimination and develop and modernization of the socio-structural differences strengthened.

Regarding to the environmental and socio-structural measures most important steps is taken under MacSharry reform. First, the direct payment scheme was introduced, which also affected the input usage rates of the farmers. Second the early retirement of the farmers over 55 years old that creates new employment opportunities for young rural society. Third, new agro-environmental measures.

In year 1999, Agenda 2000, which was inline with MacSharry reforms, has accepted. This agenda strengthen the structural funds and also established an independent environmental policy.

Then 2003 Reform which introduced the Rural Development as the second pillar of the CAP. Introduction of the cross compliance measures.

When we analyse different literature regarding to the development of the Environmental modernization and rural development theory we also notice that above mentioned CAP development timeline fits with the development of the ecological modernization theory somehow. For example, Marsden, T. [5] theory of agro-industrial model fits with the CAP between 1960s to 1990s. As he stated, the agro industrial model sees the nature as something to overcome, or at least held back by continues application of new technologies in the agriculture and food sphere. How we interpreted from the EU dimension, heavy support for the production and not interested on the main factors of production as labour, land and nature.

However with growing interest of the urban public on environmental issues, brings new dimension to agriculture and environmental issues post-productivist model of Marsden [5], which tends to marginalise nature as consumption good to be exploited not by industrial capital but by the urban population. During this period we can also talk about the growing discussions on Human health, Animal Welfare, Food Safety and Environmental protection.

And current situation since the year 2000, introduction of corporate social responsibility term and increasing green activism, can shown as a practical way of Marshden’s sustainable rural development dynamics. Creating new opportunities in the rural areas for rural societies and distribution the agriculture from rural development. Seeing agriculture as part of Rural development not as equal to rural development. Using the agricultures multifunction for rural landscape development, protection of biodiversity, and sustainable use of resources, etc.

At the very beginning EU process the small enterprises was forced to closed and we forced the agricultural enterprises to produce more and standardized products. However, now within the new era we are talking about the “small is good” business. Looking for healthier and not artificial production. We demand for quality and diversity and healthy not for so much standardized production. Awareness of the urban society is one of the supportive act for changes. But also organized rural societies are also demanding this change they demand for more at the moment. Industry needs to follow the pathway shown by the public and their efforts will strengthen the transformation in the environment and rural areas…

References

1. Andersson, K. et al (eds.): Rural Development as Policy and Practice. Chapter 2 by Hilkka Vihinen

2. Eraktan, G., Ören, N., 2005. “AB Ortak Tarm Politikas, Reform Süreci ve Türkiye’ye Etkileri” Türkiye Ziraat Mühendisli i VI. Teknik Kongresi, 1. Cilt, Sy: 23-33, 3-7 Ocak 2005. Milli Kütüphane, Ankara.

3. Anonymous, 2004. "The Common Agricultural Policy Explained", European Commission Directorate General for Agriculture.

4. Jokinen, P. 1998. “Europeanisation and Ecological Modernisation: Agri-Environmental Policy and Practices in Finland” International workshop on ecological Modernization in university of Helsinki, Finland.

5. Marsden. T.K.: The Condition of Rural Sustainability, chapter 1

6. Trarieux, J-M., 2007. « Farm Policy Reform: The European, Experience ». American Farm Bureau Federation Annual Convention. Presentation.

Ecological Modernization and Rural Development - Theme I

This student report was prepared for Ecological Modernization and Rural Development Course during my Erasmus Exchange period in University of Helsinki (January-May 2008). This report graded as 5/5 by the professor. For who want to use some parts of this report please indicate in your references as:

Gurkan, O. 2008. "Ecological Modernization and Rural Development: ROOTS, THEORY AND PRACTICE" University of Helsinki, Course Report Theme 1. Web site: www.abtarim.blogspot.com

-------

ROOTS, THEORY AND PRACTICE

The theory of the ‘ecological modernization’ was born in 1980s and discussed and developed by a large group of experts including environmental social scientists, researchers from political and sociological disciplines during 1990s (especially Germany, Netherlands, UK and USA) [1]. During the development process of Ecological Modernization it is possible to talk about two main concept, Theoretical and Pragmatic policy programme [2].

The first ideas was introduced by a German Social Scientist Joseph HUBER – better to call as the Father of Ecological Modernization Theory- in early 1980s. In his theoretical studies, he promotes the idea that environmental problems could be addressed through super industrialization [1].

Regarding to his works, he stated that the super industrialization involves addressing environmental problems primarily through the transportation of production via the development and application of more sophisticated technologies, or need for an ecological switchover [2]. His theory was based on ecological modernization has more in common with strong versions of sustainable development in that envisages a process of the progressive modernization of institutions of modern society [2]. In the editorial article of Murphy (2000) [1], the formulized the Huber’s ideas with his own quotes

…the dirty and ugly industrial caterpillar will transform into a ecological butterfly”.

It is easy to understand from this quote; Huber’s theory of ecological modernization (EM) requires having a heavily industrialized economy. He summarized the timeline through the environmental modernization in three phases [1]:

1. Industrial Breakthrough (1789-1848)

2. Construction of Industrial Society (1848-1980)

3. Ecological modernization (since 1980)

So, regarding to the timeline first steps were mostly economy and technology oriented production process and in the third step rising awareness to forestall the harmful impacts of the human activities - which can be summarized as restructuring the industry, institutional reflexivity and transformation of society. However the Huber’s theory was excluding the role of government -just as intervention to the industrial sector- and social movements –as NGOs and public-. Following his theory different scientist developed the ideas on EM. The main determination was formulized as, restructuring the national economies: “…EM seeks to shift the emphasis of the macro-economy away from energy and resource intensive industries towards service and knowledge intensive industries” [1].

Further studies; introduce the role and main concept of ecological sound policy-making [1]:

1. There is no necessary conflict between environmental protection and economical growth and that they may in fact be mutually supportive.

2. Integration of the environment in other policy areas: effective environmental protection can only be achieved, through integrating the goals into related policy areas like, economy, energy, agriculture, transport, etc…

3. Economization of ecology: introduction of economic concepts, mechanisms and principles into environmental policy. Natural resource management, eco-tourism.

4. Support and intervention on invention, innovation, diffusion of new technologies and techniques. For example: green technologies or waste free technology industrial ecology, Natural Capitalism… [3]

During the development process of EM, one of the most important strands was on institutional reflexivity and transformation of the society. Hajer (1993 and 1995 as determined in Gibbs,D. 2000 and Murphy,J. 2000) put forward two translations of EM. First institutional reflexivity, which reminds the sustainable development and very democratic process where the institutions choose their own pathways (development or non development). Second interpretation was techno administrative EM which involves economization of nature and elitist decision-making where experts determine problems and solutions in less democratic way. The first reading was also known as strong ecological modernization and second one is weak. On the other hand, during the development period of the EM theory, it is easy to see that many researches interpreting the Ecological Modernization as a theory mainly address the solutions for the environmental problems in the industrialized (or super industrialized) countries and does not raise global distributional questions while reading the Sustainable Development (SD) theory which tide closely to global environmental issues of global justice. Therefore, against these researchers Langbelle (as formularized in Massa and Andersen, 2000), underlines that ecological modernization should be seen as a necessary component of SD, but not an alternative [4].

However, for the nation-states, the green business or economization of the ecology offers some win- win solutions for the which can be summarized as investment in innovation or environmental friendly production or technologies means having larger share in near future of the green industry (next industrial revolution the Natural Capitalism) or using the nature as a business means new employment areas and social sustainability [5].

During the implementation of the EM theory, as a pragmatic political programme it will be supported by business as it involves financial advantage. It was also possible to see this approach of the business in establishment of regional development agencies (RDAs) in UK and while setting up their main objectives as an example. At the beginning the Regional development commission was claimed on that the RDAs must adopt EM principles in their regions, however the implementation of the programs wasn’t been easy in the means of working in cooperation with the local and regional partners. Reason lays under the problem was environmental protection is relevant to development because high quality natural environments area prerequisite to attract inward investment, high value employment and tourist activity. So regions need to growing economy to create the resources need to address the environmental problems, and then the improved competitiveness will turn the regions addressing social and environmental problems [2].

Addition to above example, also Finnish policy programme in agro-environmental issues can be pointed as another problematic adoption process ecological modernization principles. Finland has carried an agriculture and pollution project that was related to the water pollution caused by the agricultural resources. This example also shows that regarding to the determination of the nitrate vulnerable zones arising conflicts between the farmers’ organization and two ministries (Ministry of agriculture and forestry and Ministry of Environment) were mainly based on the development level of the region [6].

So, maybe these mentioned examples can be a very supportive clue for the Huber’s arguments on more industrialization as solution to ecological crisis.

But, what about the developing world and their environmental and social problems?

References:

1. Murphy, J. 2000. “Editorial: Ecological Modernization”, Geoforum 31 (2000), p.1-8

2. Gibbs, D. 2000. “Ecological modernisation, regional economic development and regional development agencies” Geoforum 31 (2000), p.9-19

3. Anonymous, 2007. Wikipedia Website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_modernization

4. Massa, I. and Andersen, M.S. 2000. “Special Issue Introduction: Ecological Modernization”, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 2: 265-267

5. Hawken, P, Lovins, A. and Lovins, H. 1999. “Natural Capitalism: Creating The Next Industrial Revolution” Rocky Mountain Institute Publications.

6. Jokinen, P. 1998. “Europeanisation and Ecological Modernisation: Agri-Environmental Policy and Practices in Finland” International workshop on ecological Modernization in university of Helsinki, Finland.

23 Mayıs 2008 Cuma

COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY OF EUROPEAN UNION - Report II

This student report was prepared for Agricultural Rural Policy of EU Course during my Erasmus Exchange period in University of Helsinki (January-May 2008). I tried to give all the references I benefit from, thanks for their understanding. This report graded as 14/15 by the profesor. For who want to use some parts of this report please indicate in your references as:

Gurkan, O. 2008. "COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY OF EUROPEAN UNION:
CHANGES and DEVELOPMENTS BETWEEN 1990-2007, University of Helsinki, MPOL1 Course Report 2. Web site: www.abtarim.blogspot.com

--------

CHANGES and DEVELOPMENTS BETWEEN 1990-2007


1. INTRODUCTION
Since its establishment EU’s CAP has been to subject to radical changes both in its structure and also in its philosophy. As mentioned in previous report it was necessary for European countries, to overcome the post-war shortcomings in food supply. If we like to summarize the situation of postwar times; reduced rates in production, non-stable markets for farm products and food safety problems. The required act was to establishment of a common ground for agricultural policy with in the European Community. It was not so easy because policy and farms structures were diverse from each other. On the other hand, as stated by Vihinen [1] many other interpretations have been given related to the needs of the establishment, in a general framework these were:

- Agriculture was the major employer and there was a great need to improve incomes in the sector,
- West Germany was interested on France’s industrial market and France was interested on Germany’s agricultural market,
- If agricultural policy remained in the hands of Member States, it would undermine the common policies of other sectors. Different price levels will result the countries with low price levels would have competitive advantages.

So, at the beginning CAP was introducing production, trade and market oriented view [1] and it was designed to encouraging better productivity in the food chain, so that consumers had a stable supply of affordable food, but also to ensure that the EU had a viable agricultural sector [2]. As believed so far, overcome of the problems and shortcomings of disadvantage regions and family farm structure would be possible by increasing the productivity [1].

The CAP was very successful in meeting its objective of moving the EU towards self-sufficiency, by the 1980s the EU had to contend with almost permanent surpluses of the major farm commodities, some of which were exported, others of which had to be stored or disposed of within the EU [2]. However, growing surplus problems, negative reflections of the EU’s high protection in trade in world trade arena, increasing social arguments about the impacts of high input farming and rural development and the enlargement of the Community through the Southern, Nordic, Eastern countries made EU’s CAP subject to many reforms.

-------------------------------
Figure 1: The CAP : from Past to Present[9]
-------------------------------

Today's with complex structure and specialised measures CAP is not just focused on economical and political dimension but also cares about the social life of its citizens. Health and environmental issues, animal welfare and the consumer demands are taking very important place in the policy. EU socializing its rural areas to set up a sustainable life for farmers. In this report the main developments and changes in the Common Agricultural Policy of EU will be described.


2. CHANGES and DEVELOPMENTS
2.1. Milestones until 1990
First reform movement started in year 1968, by the Commissioner Mansholt’s introduction of his reform plan. So-called Mansholt Plan, was introducing a structural policy changes which meant focusing on agricultural factors of production rather than production and rather than thinking in terms of different products, their prices and produced amounts. The plan was mainly constructed on production factors: Labour, land and capital [1]. However plan had been subjected to resistance and not accepted as the proposed form, it brings 3 new socio-structural directives (modernisation of farms, relocation of utilised agricultural lands for structural improvement, and guidance service and retraining of the persons works in agriculture)

Then in year 1973 the improvement memorandum that brings the environmental protection to the sunlight in the CAP. These followed by introduction of the fourth socio-structural directive related to the Less Favourable Areas (mountain and hill farming). This document differs with regional and sectoral interest while others were horizontal and it was very first time that territorial approach was used in agricultural structural policy, and concept of discrimination between regions [1].

With the joining of new member states (Denmark, Ireland, UK, and followed by Greece, Spain and Portuguese) new agenda has started. Introduction of Integrated Development Programmes and Integrated Mediterranean Programmes the idea of overcoming the regional discrimination and develop and modernization of the socio-structural differences strengthened.


2.2. Changes and Developments: from 1990 to 2007
A) MacSharry Reform (1992)
Commissioner MacSharry’s reform package is shown as the first major reform in the CAP. Impact of the reform package was very important and it has been model for following reforms. In a General overview, the support prices levels were reduced for major products and payments were performed as direct payments, which compensated farmers for the resulting loss of income [3][4] and also introduced accompanying measures: early retirement scheme (farmers over 55 years old), an agrienvironment scheme and a scheme for afforestation, designed to reduce production capacity and to improve the structure of farming [1][3][4].

The main idea of the reform was, reducing the interventions to market supply and demand equilibrium as much as possible, so over a 3 year cut-off phase for major products but in the core cereals (30% in 3 years) and beef (15% in 3 years) intervention prices were foreseen to bring the prices closer to world market levels. Reductions in support prices were changed to direct income where the farmers are paid per hectare and livestock, based on historic average yields and base area per region and fixed number of animals based on herd size and limited quota [1][3][4][5]. Reform package was also including quota reductions for milk production (5% in 3 years) [5] (however, regarding to the literature these measures were forgotten soon [1]) and butter. The 1992 reform introduced a set-aside scheme in the arable sector, which allowed the Commission to curtail the arable area and gain control of surpluses in that sector. It’s also obvious to talk about the influence of GATT on MacSharry reforms, fore example the oilseed sector that was subjected to long running discussion within Community measure of the reform the cereal and oilseed producers had to take 15% of their land out of production to qualify for the compensation [1]. (As stated in the literature ”the community preference was installed for cereals, milk, beef and sugar but due to the European animal feed lobby and US feed was ommited from the list and became duty-free. Farmers then began to focus on products supported by the CAP annd to buy cheap imported feed. Feed producers increased their imports.” and continues as ”As a result, the system soon began to generate surplusse, not only animal products but also in cereals, as land that would normally have been used for fodder production was sown to cereals which feed feed producers refused to buy at the European guaranteed price.” Litreature states that between 1964 and 1987 Commmision introduced oilseed levys to erase the negative impacts of earlier actions and the growing production and related oilseed regulation was ruled as uncompatible under GATT [6].)

The reform package was not including other major products like sugar, fruit and vegetables, wine, olive oil, pork and poultry. Regarding to the Vihinen’s opinion [1] it strengthen the the status if environment and rural issues on the agenda, established direct income subsidies, however, the reform left the core of the old CAP, commodity regimes and price guarantees almost untouched. Author also states “the old core just lost only little force, but the cost of policy has moved more from consumers to taxpayers”.

-------------------------------
Figure 2: Evaluation of the CAP [1]
-------------------------------

B) Agenda 2000 (1999)
During the Extraordinary European Council in Berlin, in regard to largest enlargement (through Central and Eastern European Countries including Malta and Southern Cyprus) of all the times, new reform package for CAP so-called Agenda 2000, was introduced. Overall aims were reinforce agriculture’s competitiveness, to review the manner in which the CAP is financed, to give greater emphasis to environmental and consumer health policy objectives, and the multifunctional role of the European model of farming [3] [7].

“The main focus was on financial prospects in context of next enlargement during the establishment of the general Framework of the Agenda 2000” as stated by Girard-Vasseur and Vergnaud [7] and it was in line set with MacSharry reform [1]. In the framework of this reform, Commission tend to the direct income payments and rural development policy by strengthening the 1992 reform. Girard-Vasseur and Vergnaud [7], grouped the measures taken under Agenda 2000 under 3 maincategories:

- cuts in intervention process with shortfall in receipts for farmers offset by income subsidies,
- revision of the financial contribution made by Member States, to reduce existing imbalance in the prospect of EU enlargement,
- introduction of a more direct link between internal financial aid and compliance with environmental criteria

If we like to detailed above mentioned measures as formulized by Varol [4], it is easy to recognize the stress on rural development (to foster the farming techniques that contribute to protection and enrichment of rural environment and landscape, to contribute to obtain sustainable income levels by supporting the economical development in rural areas) and environment. And regarding to his studies the tools foreseen to obtain this results are: reducing the guaranteed price levels, fostering the environmental friendly farming techniques, adoption of integrated rural development approach, and focusing on quality to obtain highest food safety and quality standard demands of the consumers.

So with these measures, Agenda 2000 reform package was also introducing the idea of an integrated rural development policy as a second pillar of the CAP [3] as mentioned in the literature [3] where compensatory allowances under the less favoured areas measure, as well as rural development measures previously financed by the FEOGA Guidance Fund, into a single Rural Development Regulation.

Within the reform package new reductions on the institutional prices of cereals (15%), beef (20%) and dairy (15% begin form 2005) products were foreseen and direct payments were increased.

During the discussions in Berlin a ceiling figure has been determined covers all agricultural spending until year 2006 [3][4][7][8]. Taken measures were important step not just for to fasten and facilitate the integration of the new Member States but also would be strengthen the position of EU during the forthcoming WTO negotiations.

Vihinen [1], summarized the timeline begins from 1992 with MacSharry reform till the end of Agenda 2000 reform as a period where policy measures broadened gradually from products to production factors, and from the goal of productivity increase to production control and supervising of production reduction.

-------------------------------
Figure 3: Changes in CAP payments [8]
-------------------------------

C) Mid Term Health Check For Agenda 2000 and 2003 Reform
During the Commission meeting in Berlin assessing the mid-term impacts of the Agenda 2000 foreseen and between 2002 and 2003. The “full decoupling’ was and still in the core of the 2003 reform.

When we have general a look to main measures adopted the very first one was the introduction of Single Payment Scheme, which sets a payment program for a single farm independent from production rates. This measure allows farmers to designate their production components regarding to the market opportunities. Also this system brings a more transparency to income supports [4]. Second important introduction was the dynamic modulation, meant obtaining more funds under second pillar by money transfer from first pillar [4][8]. Third important measure was the adoption of the cross compliance, which reducing and controlling the negative impacts of agriculture on environment, food safety, animal health welfare and also determining standards for worker security. Furthermore this measures was thought as additional support for the farmers who voluntarily taking these measures in to account.

-------------------------------
Figure 4: Farm Expenditure – EAGGF Guarantee Section - by type of expenditure [8]
-------------------------------

D. Reforms after 2003
As stated under the literature, Reforms are ongoing process for CAP. The new development and changes done under 2003 reform, followed by small product based reform packages has implemented on Common Market organization of the Agricultural products [8].

In year 2004 so-called Mediterranean Products (olive oil, tobacco, cotton) and hops [8]. Followed by sugar reform in 2005/2006. Then in year 2007 Fresh Fruit and Vegetable CMO was under reform studies. At the same time the Wine CMO has been subject to reform studies, which still continues [8][10].

On the other hand, in year 2006 a new Environmental Action Program was introduced (6th EAP) under Environmental Policy, and this program introducing very important changes which will directly affect the agricultural production (like reducing the pesticide usage, or banning the aerial spraying and obligatory use of the Integrated pest management principles in farming under the thematic strategy on sustainable use of pesticides).


3. CONCLUSION
The EU’s CAP since the date it was established, it always have been in the centre of the discussions and arguments. Sometimes the high percentage of the budget allocation, sometimes the increasing surpluses then with parallel to the increasing public awareness the negative impacts of CAP on environment and health and the developing ideas through the corporate social responsibility. These arguments increased during every enlargement process and will continue to increase. And the Commissioners always answered them by introducing radical changes like decoupling, cross compliance, Food safety standards, introduction of the nitrate directive, rural development programs (leader+).

The world is developing very fast, conditions are changing developed countries can answer these winds, they can format of their trade and production policies and develop new measures to protect their selves with new invented hidden trade barriers like phytosanitary checks or quality standards but how long can these barriers overcame by the less developed countries.

EU, at the moment using a quote as they are supporting the developing countries for establishment of better and more equal world. So, maybe the new era in front of the EU will bring a new must to include the 3rd world into their reform packages.


REFERENCES

[1] Andersson, K. et al (eds.): Rural Development as Policy and Practice. Chapter 2 by Hilkka Vihinen.

[2] Anonymous, 2004. "The Common Agricultural Policy Explained", European Commission Directorate General for Agriculture.

[3] Anonymous, 2005. Trinity College Dublin, College Green, Website: http://www.tcd.ie/iiis/ policycoherence/index.php/iiis/eu_agricultural_policy_reform/the_cap_reform_process


[4] Varol, S. 2003."Dünden Bugüne OTP ve AB Tariminin Yönetim Yapisi" AB Genisleme Sürecinde Türkiye: "Tarimsal ve Kirsal Politikalar" Semposium. Chamber of Agricultural Engineers Website: www.zmo.org.tr/etkinlikler/abgst03.php


[5] Hasha, G. 1999. "The European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy: Pressures for Change - An Overview", Economic Research Service/USDA.


[6] Anonymous, 2003. “Animal Feed: A Key Common Agricultural Policy Issue”. European Farmers Coordination.


[7] Girard-Vasseur, M. and Vergnaud, E. 2001. “Common Agricultural Policy: The Required Reforms”. Conjocture June 2001. p:14-23.


[8] Anonymous, 2007. “The Cap And International Trade Negotiations”, EU Commission External Trade.


[9] Trarieux, J-M., 2007. « Farm Policy Reform: The European, Experience ». American Farm Bureau Federation Annual Convention. Presentation.


[10] Anonymous, 2007. European Union Offical Website: www.eurpopa.eu

COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY OF EUROPEAN UNION - Report I

This student report was prepared for Agricultural Rural Policy of EU Course during my Erasmus Exchange period in University of Helsinki (January-May 2008). I tried to give all the references I benefit from, thanks for their understanding. This report graded as 10/10 by the profesor. For who want to use some parts of this report please indicate in your references as:

Gürkan, O. 2008. "COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY OF EUROPEAN UNION: WHEN? HOW? WHY and by WHOM IT was ESTABLISHED?, University of Helsinki, MPOL1 Course Report 1. Web site: www.abtarim.blogspot.com

---------

WHEN? HOW? WHY and by WHOM IT was ESTABLISHED?

1. INTRODUCTION
After the long lasting wars in the 19th century, tired and damaged European Countries decided to pass the management of some important war industry resources to a supra-national organization to forestall the future wars. Regarding to the suggestion of Jean MONNET, under the leadership of Robert SCHUMAN the "SIX ORIGINALS" of the Europe (France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg), signed an agreement in Paris in 1957 to establish a common market for coal and steel.

The effectiveness and success of this supra-national organization on coal and steel policy has followed by the establishment of European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957, to developed more common policies which are both in political and economical dimension. The priority task for European countries was to establish a common ground for agricultural policy which is very diverse from each other, to supply safe and secure food for their citizens which were having so many problems to reach food during and after the war years. Reduced rates in production, non-stable markets for farm products and food safety problems. After very severe arguments the one of the first common policy of European Union (was EEC in that days), was settled up. The "Common Agricultural Policy" (CAP) of Europe.

At the beginning it was designed to encouraging better productivity in the food chain, so that consumers had a stable supply of affordable food, but also to ensure that the EU had a viable agricultural sector as described in the document named "The Common Agricultural Policy Explained". The CAP was very successful in meeting its objective of moving the EU towards selfsufficiency, by the 1980s the EU had to contend with almost permanent surpluses of the major farm commodities, some of which were exported, others of which had to be stored or disposed of within the EU [1]. Passing years and chancing conditions of the world and the union, the common agricultural policy of EU has subjected to many reforms.

Today's CAP is one of the most developed and complex structured policy area both in Europe Union and the world, and still being subject to reforms to follow the and afford the demands of growing world and its own citizens. The environment where it has been first established and how it change during this long run is amazing. Today EU is the one of the major player of global
agricultural trade and world’s largest agricultural importer and the world’s second largest exporter [1][2][8] (Figure 1 and 2). As indicated in the document of USDA [8], 2004: The United States and the European Union are the world’s largest exporters of agricultural products, each accounting for nearly 20 percent of global exports in 1996-2000. The European Union is the world’s top importer of agricultural goods, and, since 1996, the United States is the second largest. Since 1996, the United States has imported, on average, 13 percent of world trade in agricultural products, while the EU accounted for 18 percent.

----------------------------------------
Figure 1: U.S., EU agricultural exports by major categories, 2000 [8]
----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------
Figure 2: U.S., EU agricultural imports by major categories, 2000 [8]
----------------------------------------

Today CAP is not just focused on economical and political dimension but also cares about the social life of its citizens. Health and environmental issues, animal welfare and the consumer demands are taking very important place in the policy. EU socializing its rural areas to set up a sustainable life for farmers.

In this report the history of the Common Agricultural Policy of EU will be described. Why? When? How? And who established it?


2. HISTORY OF THE CAP
2.1. WHEN, WHY and by WHOM?
The roots of the CAP starts in early 1950s following the idea of establishment of the black pool
(establishment of European Coal and Steel Community), the setting up of a green pool (to organize agricultural production and food supplies) was stated [3].

As mentioned under the introduction part; the Europe was become tired and damaged and related to widespread rural welfare problems, the relative backwardness of agricultural production in many areas, and a perceived need for secure food supplies following shortages persisted for nearly a decade following World War II [2]. On the other hand it was not easy to sustain the agricultural policies within the Continental Europe because many different agricultural policies was exist and this was also introducing new challenges to the countries during determining their own production gradient [4]. So it was necessary to carry a CAP within Continental Europe to surmount the difficulties in the area of agriculture. However, it was not possible to establish the green pool because of the jarring interest of the France and England [3].

In 1955, Paul-Henri SPAAK (Foreign Affairs Minister of Belgium), formulized the importance of the agricultural integration for establishment of the common market for very first time in his report –very well known as SPAAK Report. SPAAK was determining 3 important necessary conditions to complete to setting up a common market for agricultural products [5]:

1. To remove the barriers in Agricultural trade, including the quotas, custom duties, seasonal restrictions, export subsidize.
2. Setting up a common agricultural policy for all the member states
3. Requirement for a transitional period to harmonize the technical area, agricultural input sectors, and price levels.

These priorities had form the basics of the decisions related to agriculture under Treaty of Rome (Founder Treaty of the European Economic Community-1957 and establishes common market). The reasons behind the establishment of the common agricultural policy lay down under the purpose of the CAP which are introduced under article 39 of Title II of Part III of Rome Treaty as follows (Article 33 in Treaty of EU) (Figure 3) [7]:

(a) to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of the factors of production, in particular labour;
(b) thus to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture;
(c) to stabilise markets;
(d) to assure the availability of supplies;
(e) to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices.

The agricultural sector; was the most problematic area of the economic integration for the EC countries to negotiate because the agriculture of each was so different then each other. Each country had its own food and agricultural policies developed to meet the needs of its citizens [5] [9].


2.2. HOW?
Common agricultural policy has 3 target groups; which are Farmers, Consumers and Public Society. Related to these groups CAP is consist of production increase, income increase, food safety and security, affordable prices for required goods, environment and supply-demand equilibrium. Since the long lasting argument between Germany and France regarding to Germany’s power on the markets with its industrial products, France was expecting to introduce its power on agricultural products [3]. So, following the signing of Treaty of Rome, in 1958 during the Stresa Conference 3 fundamental principles of the CAP was introduced and Council of EEC was agreed on these principles in 1960 [2][3][4][10]:

1) Free trade within the Community based on common prices (Single Market): Member states should remove all trade barriers (custom duties, quantity restrictions, etc.) incrementally, should harmonize the administrative and technical procedures and health standards related to agricultural products. By these ways agricultural products could move freely between the Member States and Single Market would be set up. Establishment of the single market also required to determination of the common price formation and common protection against 3rd countries. Single Market would also allow harmonizing of the plant, animal and public health standards.
2) Preference for Community produce in Community markets: As it clearly indicates in its name, the agricultural products of and the production in Member States, will be supported as a whole. In this scope, Community will be able to take measures to protect the domestic market by import limitations and to support the exportation of the community products.
3) Joint financial responsibility: All Member States must undertake the setting up the community budget and all the required costs related to the management of the CAP will be met from this budget. In 1962, this principle was strengthening by the establishment of European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (FEOGA, EAGGF). Since 1962, with an increasing amounts the total budget for CAP has reached to 50% of thetotal EU budget, and for 2007-2013 period it has determined around 40-45% (Figure 4) [11]. Large share of the Agriculture always subjected to discussion, however, it is reducing and has fixed for 2007-2013 period.

----------------------------------------
Figure 4: EU Expenditure in2006 and 2007-2013 peroid [11].
----------------------------------------

3. CONCLUSION

Under different literature sources the development of the CAP is described with similar milestones, if we try to summarize them[2][3][10]:

+ Establishment of CAP (1956-67)
- Common organisation of agricultural markets
- Setting up the agricultural budget
- Formation of common prices

+ Positive effects of CAP (1968-79)
- Price support mechanisms for unlimitted production
- Levy

+ Growing Problems and Reforms (1980-89 and 1990-95)
- Green Paper and Integrated Mediteranien Programs
- Delor’s Package
- Beginning of direct payments
- GATT/WTO Negotiations and Effects of Uruguay Round

+ Enlargement and Its Effects (1996-2006)
- Agenda 2000
- Enlargement

+ Last Stage (2007-2013)
- Social Responsibility
- More Environment Friendly Production
- Improvement of Rural Areas
- Competitiveness

At the beginning CAP was foreseen as an arrangement to supply mostly the domestic demands, however, as a result of heavy supports and protection on agriculture the production was improved to over demand, producer income increased. In a very short period, in 1980s EU (EEC at that time) was placed in very important place within the world agriculture market, and became a very important and competitive rival of USA and other important agricultural product exporter countries [5].

The CAP was very successful in meeting its objective of moving the EU towards self-sufficiency,
commodities, some of which were exported, others of which had to be stored or disposed of withinby the 1980s the EU had to contend with almost permanent surpluses of the major farm the EU [1] (Figure 5). In many different platforms the production increase and surplus are described as butter mountains, milk seas and wine lakes…

----------------------------------------
Figure 5: Changes in self-sufficiency of EU on main agricultural products [1]
----------------------------------------

Changing composition in world agriculture and trade, and changing conditions of the EU, has made reforms in CAP. Today CAP is not anymore what it was in 1960s-80s. Many important changes to the CAP were made in the 1990s. Production limits helped reduce surpluses and a new emphasis was placed on environmentally sound farming. However, with new introduced measures today EU farmers more competitive and market oriented. They will be free to produce according to what is most profitable for them while still enjoying a desirable stability of income [1].

As Franz Fischler says; In the past ten years scarcely a stone has been left unturned in the EU’s
common agricultural policy (CAP). A far cry from the policy that once offered subsidies in response to the quantity produced, CAP support is now dependent on meeting quality, environmental and food safety guarantees, in line with the priorities of the European public [1].


REFERENCES
[1] Anonymous, 2004. "The Common Agricultural Policy Explained", European Commission
Directorate General for Agriculture.

[2] Hasha, G. 1999. "The European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy: Pressures for Change - An Overview", Economic Research Service/USDA.

[3] Eraktan, G. 2005. "Avrupa Birligi Ortak Tarim Politikasi, Summary of the Conference V";Preparation For EU Negotiations Conferences Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Website:www.tarim.gov.tr/arayuz/10/icerik.asp?fl=../AB_Tarim/abhazirlik_konferanslar/kon
ferans_anasayfa.htm

[4] Varol, S. 2003."Dünden Bugüne OTP ve AB Tariminin Yönetim Yapisi" AB Genisleme Sürecinde Türkiye: "Tarimsal ve Kirsal Politikalar" Semposium. Chamber of Agricultural Engineers Website: www.zmo.org.tr/etkinlikler/abgst03.php

[5] Eraktan, G., Ören, N., 2005. “AB Ortak Tarim Politikasi Reform Süreci ve Türkiye’ye Etkileri” Türkiye Ziraat Mühendisligi VI. Teknik Kongresi, 1. Cilt, Sy: 23-33, 3-7 Ocak 2005 Milli Kütüphane, Ankara

[6] Anonymous, 2008. University Association for Contemporary European Studies Official website: www.uaces.org

[7] Anonymous, 2008. European Union Website: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/ce321/ce32120061229en00010331.pdf

[8] Normile M. A. and Price, J., 2004. "The United States and the European Union— Statistical Overview"; U.S.-EU Food and Agriculture Comparisons / WRS-04-04, Economic Research Service, USDA p:1-13

[9] Porter J. M. and Bowers D. E. 1989. "A Short History of U.S. Agricultural Trade Negotiations" Agriculture and Rural Economy Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

[10] Erkal, A., 2003. EU Expertise Thesis. “Avrupa Birligi Ortak Tarim Politikasi Kapsaminda Taze Meyve Ve Sebze Ortak Piyasa Düzeni”. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.

[11] Hausner, K.H. 2007. “The European Budget in the Years 2007 to 2013 and the Common Agricultural Policy”. Intereconomics, January/February 2007, s 54 - 60

4 Aralık 2007 Salı

IAAS Türkiye - Uluslararası Tarım ve İlgili Bilimler Öğrenci Birliği


IAAS

International Association of Students in Agricultural and Related Sciences

...

IAAS Türkiye
Uluslararası Tarım ve İlgili Bilimler Öğrenci Birliği'nin Türkiye Şubesidir.



IAAS,
kar amacı gütmeyen, herhangi bir siyasi kimliği bulunmayan tamamen öğrenciler tarafından yönetilen tam bağımsız bir oluşumudur.


...

Misyonumuz:

Tarım ve Yaşam Bilimleri alanında eğitim gören tüm dünya öğrencilerinin bilgi, beceri, tecrübe ve fikirlerini paylaşabileceği bir ortam yaratarak ve kültürler arası anlayışın geliştirilmesine destek vermek.

...

IAAS Kimdir?

IAAS 1957 yılında Tunus’ta kurulmuş hiçbir dini, siyasi ve özel kişi ya da kuruluşa bağlı olmaksızın faaliyet gösteren özgür bir gençlik organizasyonudur. Bugün dünyanın 50’den fazla ülkesinde, bağlı bulundukları üniversiteleri temsil eden 80’den fazla yerel komite altında 150,000’den fazla üyesi bulunan bir öğrenci birliğidir.

IAAS üyelerini, dünya genelinde genel ziraat, bitkisel ve hayvansal üretim, su ürünleri, tarım ekonomisi, gıda teknolojisi, ormancılık, peyzaj mimarlığı, çevre bilimleri ve biyoteknoloji alanlarında eğitim görmekte olan lisans ve yüksek lisans öğrencileri oluşmaktadır.

IAAS Türkiye, 2007 yılının Temmuz ayında Almanya’da gerçekleşen IAAS Genel Kurulunda üyelik başvurusunun oybirliğiyle kabulünün ardından faaliyetlerine başlamıştır. IAAS Türkiye'nin Merkezi Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi içerisinde bulunmaktadır. Halen devam etmekte olan resmi kurluş faaliyetlerinin tamamlnamasının ardından yurt içi ve yurt dışı faaliyetlerininin sayısını arttırarak ülke genelindeki tarım ve ilgili bilimler öğrencilerini bir araya getirecektir.

Arşiv taramaları sırasında, ülkemizin ilk kez 1956 yılında Paris'te gerçekleştirilen toplantıya katılmış olduğu ancak daha sonrasında her hangi bir çalışmaya katılmadığı belirlenmiştir. Aradan geçen 49 yıllık dinlenmeden sonra Polonya'da gerçekleştirilen EDM (bknz. etkinlikler)'e katılım sağlamış ve 2007 yılı için çok önemli bir etkinliğin baş aktörü olarak kaldığı yerden birliğe hızlı bir geri dönüş yapmıştır.

...

Amacımız:

Tarım ve yaşam bilimleri öğrencileri arasındaki bilimsel ve kültürel ilgi ve anlayışı geliştirmek.

Bu amacı yerine getirmek için;

  • Tarım ve yaşam bilimlerinde eğitim ve öğretimin her alanında fikir alışverişini teşvik etmeye,
  • Tüm dünyada, tarım ve yaşam bilimleri alanında eğitim gören öğrenciler arasında karşılıklı hoşgörü ve iş birliğini geliştirmeye,
  • Öğrencilerin, pratik ve teorik bilgilerini evrensel görüşler doğrultusunda geliştirerek gelecekteki profesyonel hayatın zorluklarına hazırlamaya,
  • Tarım ve yaşam bilimleri öğrencilerinin yerel ve ulusal düzeyde organizasyonlar oluşturmasını ve bunları geliştirilmesini desteklemeye,
  • Tarım ve yaşam bilimlerindeki öğrencilerin desteklenmesi için uluslararası toplantılar, seminerler ve yurtdışı eğitim programları geliştirmek,
  • Dünya genelinde sürdürülebilir tarım, ekonomik kalkınma ve gıda üretimi arttırmaya,
  • Herkesin erişebileceği yüksek kaliteli bir yüksek eğitim sistemi geliştirmeye çalışılmaktadır.
...

Etkinliklerimiz:

Genel Kurul Toplantıları (GA): IAAS yönetim kadrosunun bir araya geldiği toplantısıdır.

Bölge Başkanları Toplantısı (EDM) ve Alt Bölge Toplantıları: Aynı bölgede faaliyet göstermekte olan IAAS üyelerinin birbirleriyle etkileşime geçmek, yürütmekte oldukları faaliyetleri paylaşmak ve çeşitli seminerlere katılmak amacıyla yılda bir kez bir araya geldikleri toplantılardır.


Seminerler ve Konferanslar:
Yerel veya ulusal komiteler tarafından belli konularda bilgi paylaşımını desteklemek amacıyla düzenlenirler. Ayrıca her yıl düzenli olarak farklı ülkelerin ev sahipliğinde değişik konular üzerine gerçekleştirilen “IAAS Dünya Kongresi” (WoCo) yapılmaktadır.

Köy Konsept Projeleri: Öğrenciler tarafından geliştirilen ve yürütülen küçük ölçekli kalkınma projeleri.

Değişim programları:
Tarım ve yaşam bilimleri öğrencilerinin mesleki pratik bilgi ve becerileri geliştirmeleri amacıyla oluşturulmuş eğitim gördükleri ülkeler dışında, başka bir ülkede faaliyet gösteren çiftlik, organizasyon veya bir şirkette staj yapmasına olanak veren öğrenci değişim programlarıdır.

Bu etkinlikler haricinde kültür, sanat vb alanlarda çeşitli alanlarda da birçok ulusal ve uluslararası organizasyon da düzenlenmektedir.


IAAS Türkiye, ilk etkinliğini 14-19 Mayıs 2007 tarihinde, fakültemizin en eski ve etkin gruplarından birisi olan ZiFTT (Ziraat Fakültesi Tiyatro Topluluğu) ile birlikte düzenledikleri 1. Uluslararası IAAS Sanat Festivali ve ZiFTT Üniversite Tiyatroları Buluşması” ile gerçekleştirmiştir.

...

IAAS Türkiye Kurucu ve I dönem Yönetim Kurulu:

Ulusal Koordinatör :Orçun GÜRKAN
Değişim Programları Koor. :Selcan ALPTEKİN
Finansman Koordinatörü :Demet KÖROĞLU
Etkinlik Koordinatörü :Malik KAMBUR
İşbirliği ve Sponsorluk Koor. :Yasin SEZER
Medya ve Halkla İlişkiler Koor:Bahadır GENÇ

Finansal Denetleme Kurulu :
Onur ITIR

Murat KUTAY

Yönetim Kurulu Üyeleri :
Gözde ÇAKMAK

Semih MICIK

Pınar ÇEP

...
Düzenleyen: Orçun Gürkan
internet: www.iaasworld.org
www.iaasturkiye.blogspot.com
E-posta: iaasturkiye@gmail.com

1 Aralık 2007 Cumartesi

IAAS Activity (PCM Training)


Proje Döngüsü Yönetimi (PCM) Eğitmi

AnkaraTürkiye

16 – 17 Kasım 2007


...

“A carelessly planned project takes three times longer to complete than expected; a carefully planned project takes only twice as long”

Lubarsky's Law of Cybernetic Entomology

...


16 - 17 Kasım 2007 tarihleri arasında Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Bİtki Koruma Bölümü Seminer Salonunda 12 üyemizin katılımıyla AB Proje Döngüsü Yönetimi Eğitimini gerçekleştirdik.

Eğitimin İçeriği:

2 gün süren eğitim boyunca katılımcılar ulusal ve uluslararası programlar altında istekli ve yetenekli gençlerin, kullanımlarına açılan fonlardan daha fazla faydalanabilmeleri ve isteklerini gerçekleştirirken daha nitelikli ve daha kaliteli projeler geliştirebilmeleri için ihtiyaç duyacakları araç ve bilgileri öğrenirken, bol bol uygulama fırsatı yakaladılar.

Konu akışı :

  1. Proje Nedir?
  2. Proje Döngüsü Yönetimi (PCM) Nedir?
  3. Proje Tanımlama, Planlama ve Tasarım Araçları
    • Durum Analizi
    • Kapasite Analizi
    • SWOT Analizi
    • PEST Analizi
    • Paydaş Analizi
    • Sorun Analizi
    • Hedef Analizi
    • Strateji Analizi
    • .
  4. Mantıksal Çerçeve Matriksi
    • Dikey Mantık (Müdahele Mantığı, Varsayımlar)
    • Yatay Mantık (Doğrulanabilir Göstergeler, Tarafsız Doğrulama Kaynakları)
    • Faaliyet Planlama (GANNT Tablosu)
    • Maaliyet Planlaması (Kontrol Listesi)
...

Eğitmen: Orçun GÜRKAN (IAAS Ulusal Koordinatörü) (AB Uzman Yrd.)

Katılımcılar:
  1. Selcan ALPTEKİN (Değişim Programları Koor.)
  2. Yasin SEZER (İşbirliği ve Sponsorluk Koor.)
  3. Bahadır BİÇER (Medya ve Halkla İlişkiler Koor.)
  4. Pınar ÇEP (Yönetim Kurulu Üyesi)
  5. Onur ITIR (Denetim Kurlu Üyesi)
  6. Gözde ÇAKMAK (Yönetim Kurulu Üyesi)
  7. Murat KUTAY (Denetim Kurlu Üyesi)
  8. Duygu SOLAKOĞLU
  9. Arzu ÇELİK
  10. Ahmet ÖZKAN
  11. Eymen TOPRAK
  12. İsmail KALKAL
...

Fotoğraflar

Düzenleyen: Orçun Gürkan