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.