E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N

R
U
R
A
l

W
O
R
L
D

Proposal booklet for the 21st century

August 2001

Disclaimer

This document constitutes a possible synthesis of the RUR group. It does not pretend to be an exhaustive rendition of the dialogues, nor does it pretend to be a faithful reflection of the opinions of all the participants. It has not been subjected to any ratification process. In short, although the authors make no claim to be the sources of the ideas purveyed, they accept responsibility for the way they have been set out and the possible, subsequent interpretations. 

This synthesis is therefore the subjective point of view of the group's co-ordinators, formulated on the basis of notes taken by certain participants, the intermediate syntheses written by the co-ordinators and paper-board sheets recovered at the end of the meetings.

The purpose of this document is twofold:
1) Provide the fullest possible record of the dialogues;
2) Offer a "state of the situation" of the considerations noted in order to continue working remotely from now to the world assembly at Lille in December 2001.

All comments, reflections and additions made with the intention of enhancing this synthesis are welcome.

Our Europe

Geographically, Europe has a surface area of 10.4 million km² and a population of 720 million.
If the countries of the former Soviet Bloc (essentially Russia, Byelorussia and Ukraine) are excluded, the figures fall to less than 5 million km² for a population of 500 million. This results in an average population density of 100 people per square kilometre. 

However this figure is only an average, since large tracts are inhospitable and thus sparsely populated. A country such as Sweden, covering a tenth of Europe's landmass with 500,000 km², has a population of only 9 million, i.e. less than 2% of Europe's population and a population density of 18 inhabitants per square km! On the contrary, the population densities of certain regions are among the highest in the world: the Netherlands has a surface area of 34,000 km², less than 0.7% of Europe, but has a population of 15 million, representing 3% of the population, and resulting in a density of 440 inhabitants per km²! Between the Mediterranean and the Arctic Circle, between desert and conurbation, and urban green belts and plains given over to cereal production, Europe's territory appears very mixed, some might even say a patchwork. Furthermore, it is divided into thirty States. 

We must ask ourselves what we want from our territory in the midst of globalisation, agricultural crisis, reunification (East/West), political fragmentation and doubts as to the sustainability of our mode of collective (at the level of society) and individual development. In fact a great deal of sometimes contradictory things: cultural recognition, landscape, food production, preservation of the environment, a place for intimacy and restoring inner strength, a place of therapy, etc.

For the last two years, the European Rural World has been co-ordinating reflection on the future of our European territory and on new ways of managing it better in the service of our societies, in order to promote common awareness of this territory that binds the people that live on it together. 

Contents 

Part 1: the context and the RUR group

1. The Peles meeting 

2. The RUR group, the issue and the objectives 
A) The great geographic and cultural diversity of the participants 
B) The participation of the meeting in a larger process 
C) Aims for definite goals: the proposal booklets 

 3. The method used by the work group 

Part 2: The general principles, "sub-principles"  and rules

A) The principle of loyalty and transparency in the information available to citizens.

B) The principle of participatory democracy in formulating and applying the laws, rules and procedures used to regulate our territories.

C)	A principle of a rural Europe free of pollution, careful in its choices and liveable in the long term. 

D)	The principle of a welcoming, accessible, active and useful rural territory.

E) The principle of a reunified Europe.

Part 3: Proposals – The summary table

Conclusions: Contribution of the ERW group to building "the Europe that we want".

Part 1 – the context and the RUR group

By Philippe Cacciabue – France

1. The Peles meeting 

The Alliance for a responsible, plural and united world brought together more than 130 citizens from 39 countries in Europe and the Mediterranean basin to debate on European construction at Peles in Romania from 17 to 21 June 2001.
Invited to make concrete proposals in the Internet discussion forums at the end of 2000, the participants gave their opinions about the four following subjects:
-	(GOV) European governance; 
-	(WORK) Work and social organisation;
-	(MIG) Migrations and multicultural citizenship; 
-	(RUR) The rural world and sustainability.

The documents related to the Alliance process, the preparatory texts for the meeting and the summaries of the other topics can be obtained via the Internet at the web site www.echo.org

2. The RUR group: the issue and the objectives 

Our group included 33 Europeans of different nationalities gathered for five days in a far corner of the Carpathian mountains to think about the future of the European rural world. 
The main questions we asked and that face us are:
•	The evolution of farming,
•	The problem of food security, both quantitatively and qualitatively,
•	European reunification,
•	Environmental problems,
•	The place of the countryside in social challenges (citizenship, work, ageing of the population, etc.)
•	Relations with non-European countries.

The achievements of the RUR group are dealt with in the following chapters.

Before dealing with the results, we felt that it was important to emphasise the efforts made to make the Peles meeting representative of cultural diversity. We chose four ideas:

-	A) The great geographic and cultural diversity of the participants: 

The group was composed of thirty three people from twenty six countries; only eight came from the current European Union  (Belgium, Spain, Austria, Italy, France, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Greece), ten countries from Eastern Europe (Romania, Albania, Croatia, Moldavia, Poland, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Hungary), four countries from the former Eastern Bloc (Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Georgia), three “neighbouring” countries (Switzerland, Norway, Tunisia) and one Canadian. 

This diversity was both a source of wealth and difficulties that had to be overcome. 

The first problem was that of language, both concerning translations, and that of “misunderstandings” and cultural “distances”. The two working languages (French and English) were not the mother tongues of most of the participants, and in spite of the translations, part of what was said was lost in the microphones. Furthermore, the efforts made by all to understand and make themselves understood were as impressive as the geographical cultural diversities were great. Certain words such as “territory” or “multi-functionalism” are not used in the same way by everyone.

What is more, the situations of each country are very different concerning agricultural problems and social, demographic, and ecological situations. The priorities and stakes are not the same in every country, making it illusory and even dangerous to aim for a “communion” of minds regarding specific actions.

For all that, this diversity in fact made us extremely open. Several of us found it hard to situate all the countries represented around the table on a map, but learning something about Croatia or Moldavia from the participants from these countries brought us closer to these little known peoples and made us aware that we share a common destiny despite our differences. As one participant said, we will not read a press article about such and such a country in the same way, since we can now put a face to the words.
Furthermore, the diverse approaches greatly contributed to the wealth of debate. Each participant shed light on an issue in an original way as a function of his or her knowledge, and showed others another way of approaching a problem, adding a dimension, suggesting new relations, consequently enriching the way all the participants saw the world. 
 
-	B) The participation of the meeting in a larger movement. 

Our reflection in the RUR group is part of a process begun by the FPH with its European partners, in particular those dealing with agricultural issues, called “Barcelona 99: what countrysides? What food? What agriculture for Europe?” An electronic forum lasting four months (January through April 1999) gave rise to an initial debate on the future of European rural areas. A milestone meeting took place in Valencia in May 1999 (the summary can be accessed on http://www.barcelona99.org).
This meeting, which gathered about eighty Europeans of twenty three different nationalities, also led to the RUR’s choice of four sub-topics.

Furthermore, the European Continental Assembly was one of four simultaneous continental assemblies (along with those of Asia, Africa and the Americas) and a sub-regional assembly (for the Arab World), all organised in June 2001. This cycle of assemblies was scheduled to continue the impetus of the World Social Forum of Porto Alegre (Brazil, January 2001). The World Citizen’s Assembly at Lille in December 2001 will permit citizens all over the world to put their proposals together and define a schedule for action.

-	C) Objectives for specific results: the proposal booklets. 

This initiative of the Alliance is based on the idea that proposals must be formulated collectively in every area and implemented so that the transformations necessary for building a juster and more sustainable  world in the 21st century can occur. You can access more detailed information on the formulation and diffusion of the proposal booklets on http://www.alliance21.org
The RUR group at Peles made use of the work it had already carried on a draft of a proposal booklet, which is the subject of the third part of this document.
This booklet used elements of the electronic forum that had taken place several months previously, the results of other workgroups (soil, water, sustainable development, governance, etc.) and individual contributions from several persons working on the European rural world.
The main aim of the meeting was therefore to validate, modify and complete this draft of the proposal booklet.

 
3. The method used by the group : 

The working method used by our group was determined by two parameters:
1)	The wide range of expectations and priorities of each participant in relation to the stakes of European construction and the agricultural and rural situations specific to their countries,
2)	The participants' non-involvement in the Alliance movement, although the latter provided the framework and objectives of the meeting, their poor preparation for the debates, due to the short time available to them to study the preparatory document before the meeting, and the small number of participants that had participated in the forum. 

We started by introducing ourselves so that each of us could get an idea of how the groups were composed. This round table lasted half a day.  This allowed to us to perceive the diversity of the participants and understand the difficulty of the work that confronted us. 

Then, in small groups (3 groups of 10 persons), we proceeded with the analysis of the proposals contained in the preparatory document. The groups were composed according to language (a French-speaking group, an English-speaking group and a mixed group) by trying to distribute the nationals of Eastern and Western European countries equitably.
Each group read the documents on the three sub-topics ("food", "sustainable production systems" and "contracts") and then discussed them. A fourth topic, "Europe and the rest of the world" was left to one side. These four topics were those that came to the fore at Valencia in 1999. This choice of method appeared to be fruitful. By refusing to make it a subject on its own, we were obliged to work "together", with the participants of both East and West working on the same subject: our countrysides. We acted as if there were already only one Europe instead of organising two debates, one for the West and one for the East.

Analysis of the proposals progressively identified guidelines and basic principles for managing agriculture rural areas in Europe. Unfortunately, this phase of the work was insufficiently methodical and harmonised between the three groups, since each used its own method and rhythm. The objectives of this phase should have been clearer between us. However, the need to use experiences and proposals to clarify higher principles and values dawned progressively, since these principles and values also underlie the choice of proposals. This exercise allowed us to go beyond the differences of situation and priority between countries and reach agreement on the principles for the sustainable development of rural territories in Europe, however diverse the contexts are.

Midway through the meeting, we attempted two things:
1)	Identify points of agreement and disagreement on the proposals contained in the preparatory document, 
2)	Focus discussions on the principles and rules for managing European rural territories, with the aim of writing down the RUR group's contribution to conceiving another Europe for tomorrow. 

We were unable to organise transversal discussions with participants of other work groups (GOV, MIG and WORK), although this step had been planned in the work programme for the meeting. Time was lacking. 

Much work remained unfinished at the end of the meeting. There was not enough time to finish comparing each group's results and harmonise the principles that had been identified here and there. This is the task that we propose to start in this document and continue working on together before the Lille meeting.

Part 2
General principles, sub-principles and rules 

Philippe Cacciabue – France

The principles that we have identified emerged during the discussions in each group on the basis of the proposals made in the preparatory document. However, the three groups did not take the same direction and we do not have a collective synthesis of this task. Thus I have used the initial intermediate framework of analysis that I presented midway, during the plenary session. The aim of this session was to present the progress made in the other work groups. At this point, we identified five main directions.

The "sub-principles" or rules proposed by the participants appear in the box further on.
The five directions of reflection are not isolated from each other, thus certain principles are repeated several times. 

A) The principle of faithfulness and transparency in the information available to citizens.

This initial group of "principles" or rules emerged very quickly and vigorously in the discussions. It is probably the most widely shared and clearly formulated claim made, including by the GOV, MIG and WORK work groups.
It was widely felt that it is impossible to imagine a more responsible, plural and united world without a faithful and complete information system understandable by everyone. This principle, no novelty in itself, was identified in nearly all the proposals:
-	Regarding food and quality, responsible behaviour is impossible given the information available at present, not only on the products purchased but also with our advertising practices, our current education programmes, and with the level of knowledge of European citizens at present. In fact we know little about the different production methods used, but that are invisible, in the products we consume and we have lost knowledge of the links between food and health. We are also ill informed of the food and agriculture "black box" set up between raw farm products and pre-cooked foods and the general trend of consumerism encouraged by industry, fast urban lifestyles and advertising. They leave no room to imagine possible control over the "food-health" system and leave no chance for the citizen, either individually or collectively, to act responsibly, contrary to what we are entitled to expect from a so-called "modern" society. 

-	Regarding sustainable production systems, it seems clear that current information and knowledge related to different production methods, the types of energy used, how prices are established for energy, water, different consumer items and the taxes added to them, are insufficient to allow citizens to choose between such and such a product or process. How can one rely on community responsibility when its members have no idea of the different environmental and social impacts caused by various types of fuel, refrigerators, marketing networks, etc.?

-	Likewise for new contracts between farmers and society. In order to support regional and biological production, contribute towards developing outer-urban areas, open up country footpaths and sort wastes, we need to understand the challenges, measure the benefits and compare systems. The opaque mechanisms used to collect and redistribute public money, operated according to technocratic and administrative logic that is both partitioned and short-term are too entangled for the citizen to see clearly enough to make a genuine choice about the society he or she wants.

-	Lastly, even though this topic is not presented as such, Europeans know and understand little about the challenges and processes of EU enlargement. 

The sub-principles and rules. "Learning for transformation"

•	Each member state should make a "community" evaluation of school and university education programmes.
•	The role of farmers and rural territories should be given far more attention in education programmes. Every child in Europe should come into regular contact with the rural  world.
•	School programmes should include more teaching tools created on the basis of observations, analyses and actions carried out in natural and agricultural environments. 
•	The public authorities are responsible for giving citizens the means of permanently informing and educating themselves about the origins, production methods, different distribution systems, etc. involved in the products they consume. 
•	Advertising companies should comply with a "code of good conduct" to make their messages to communities more honest.

"The right to know what is done with public and private money "

•	The general public should be informed about the rules for distributing agricultural subsidies and their consequences.
•	The utilisation of business tax, taxes on tourism, etc. and the criteria used to allocate them should be made public.
•	A portion of each local tax (rates, business tax, tourism tax) should be allocated according to the objectives and priorities decided by the local inhabitants.
•	More information should be made public on how banks operate and the destination of money deposited by citizens.

"The right to know about what we eat" 

•	The information printed on labels should inform consumers of at least three things:
1) The entire composition (including chemical residues), the nutritive value of the food and its possible effects on health (positive and negative);
2) The production method used to produce the food and its environmental impacts (energy consumed, the pollution caused, countryside preserved, etc.)
3) The social impact of the production system (jobs, labour relations, etc.). 
•	Public research is responsible for providing citizens with the means to create a link between food, diets and their consequences on their health.

"The right to know the real costs of services and products"

•	Public research should provide indicators and procedures to businesses and civil society  that permit measuring the ecological impacts of each product, and fabrication and distribution process in order to compare them.
•	Each citizen should know the real cost of their energy and water consumption, transport, waste management, the impacts of their leisure and tourist activities, etc. Not only the overall cost should be known but also that of the different items that compose it (water pumping, its conveyance, treatment, distribution, recycling, etc.).
•	European institutions are responsible for establishing a system of environmental indicators (on the scale of a European region and perhaps of a farm).
•	Indirect subsidies (e.g. petrol) should be forbidden since they make it difficult to calculate real costs. Preference should be given to direct aid made known to the general public.

"The right to make choices" 

Too many standards lead to uniform fabrication methods and final products. Preference should be given to regulation systems that maintain diversity and provide consumers with good knowledge on the differences that exist between two products so that they can take on their responsibilities. Cheese made from raw milk should be allowed to exist tomorrow. 

B) The principle of participatory democracy in the formulation and application of laws, rules and procedures that govern our territories.

Places and procedures are vital to permit citizens to express their opinions on the decisions that affect their lives; they must also have adequate knowledge and information available to them to do this. The current mechanisms of representative democracy are not called into question, rather they are considered largely insufficient. Reorganising social and political life so that citizens can be consulted more often has become an urgent necessity. Examples of voting in Switzerland and consensus panels were often mentioned during our discussions.

Furthermore, dialogue often focused on the financing of these methods of democratic consultation and expression. It is inconceivable that these procedures should be used only by Europeans that "have the means" to implement them. Several us thought that European governments and institutions should be responsible for organising such methods, ensuring they endure and guaranteeing equal access to all European citizens. Perhaps one aspect of "modernity" lies in the capacity of a society to collectively create its own places and procedures, permitting popular expression, where each person can express what they think about such and such an orientation, demand explanations and make known their priorities. New communication technologies may prove to be a powerful tool for achieving this ambition, provided that there is no discrimination between areas that are equipped and the others. 

Lastly, the importance of clarity and simplicity in the rules governing decision-making is fundamental. Having complete information and a procedure for consultation is of no use if the elements for making choices and deciding priorities are not stated clearly and simply. Much progress must be made in formulating possible solutions for presenting the different alternatives that exist at any one time to the general public. 

The sub-principles and the rules 

"The right to give one's opinion"

•	Every state is responsible for organising and financing community consultation bodies.
•	The subjects of consultations and their priorities should be decided by popular consultation (for example, by referendum).
•	The costs of organising community consultations should be paid for by governments, with compensation between them to ensure equal access for all European citizens.

"The right to change opinion" 

•	Collective evaluations (carried out with communities) of the choices made collectively regarding development should permit everyone to reconsider their points of view. These evaluations should be carried out under the responsibility of the public authorities, with the participation of all the actors concerned.

"The right to be represented"

•	Citizens / consumers / taxpayers should be represented officially and seriously in all negotiations related to the implementation of public policy.
•	A "community" Codex Alimentarius should be set up to permit consumers to express their preferences, requirements and desires regarding, for example, the definition of products and waste thresholds.

C) The principle of a rural Europe free of pollution, careful in its choices and liveable in the long term 

This general principle groups everything we debated relating to the sustainability of our methods of consumption, production and trade in Europe. The idea is twofold:

-	We do not want a Europe that lives "beyond its means". There was very strong feeling against continuing certain processes in our Europe. As with living cells and organisms, European territories cannot tolerate them indefinitely. Certain balances must be respected if we simply want to continue existing. It is abnormal to tolerate a system that produces more waste than it can absorb, which pollutes more soils, water and air, whose biodiversity is declining dangerously with no appreciation of the consequences being made, and which consumes more materials and energy than it can produce. It is as important to reconsider our territories as areas free of pollution as it is to pollute less. Human activities are legitimate, but they are only acceptable if, on the one hand, they privilege material and energy saving processes and, on the other, these processes occur in closed circuits in which each system is designed taking into account other systems and not in isolation. 

-	We do not want a Europe whose sustainability is ensured at the expense of that of other regions of the world. The sustainability of our Europe makes no sense unless it also permits that of the world, and promotes, contributes and leads to such sustainability. The only rules acceptable are those that bring Europe to take on its responsibility in the sustainable management of the world. Thus it is not possible to continue consuming non-renewable energy in the same quantities, at the same pace or at the same level of global pollution, since our mode of consumption is not applicable to humanity as a whole.

The sub-principles and rules 

"The principle of forbidding through time all public subsidies for non-sustainable systems"

•	The fact that the only means of implementing public policy in the area of territorial management are subsidies for "sustainable" systems and "making the polluter pay" is unsatisfactory. It is also necessary to prohibit, rather than only penalise or simply ignore, production and distribution methods (in energy, food, materials, etc.) that are obviously noxious for the environment or socially unacceptable. 
•	Every time a new process or material that is more sustainable than its predecessors becomes known, it should immediately take their place. The possible additional costs of such measures should be calculated by independent experts, taking into account hidden costs. 

"Link public aid to the satisfaction of social and environmental criteria, thereby making it possible to measure the parameters used"

•	Agro-environmental and cross-compliance measures should be developed. Europe should apply this rule systematically: public aid should only be given provided that clear requirements that have been debated collectively are satisfied.
•	Europe must rapidly define a method and indicators so that each region can carry out territorial diagnoses permitting the definition of development priorities and the conditions to be fulfilled in order to receive public aid. This aspect may contradict the principle of holding back excessive harmonisation of standards that take no account of diverse problems and solutions.
•	Public authorities should encourage access to loans from private banks for projects satisfying sustainability criteria that have been formulated collectively.
•	Europe should make financial resources available to each region to monitor very long term biological parameters.

"Give schedules to all European objectives"

•	European institutions should apply clear and rigorously respected schedules to all the goals decided. For example, the prohibition of public aid to certain types of production or forms of energy should be carried out according to a schedule setting out the steps of the action. The applicable "rules" for such a measure should be clarified in order to allow those concerned time for preparation. 

"Dissociate (visibly for consumers) taxes according to products and sectors"

•	Public authorities cannot continue taxing different products and systems in the same way on the one hand, while granting specific subsidies on the other. Taxes such as VAT, energy tax, rates, the transport levy and business tax should differ according to the quality of the products, the type energy and the materials used.
•	(proposal): decrease VAT on bio-products.

"The principle of preference for a sustainable system rather than harmonisation of non-sustainable measures"

•	A government should have the right to protect its market if it is in competition with non-sustainable products and services according to accepted European criteria (this idea is not very clear but defended by Piotr among others).

"The principle of prudence" 

•	European institutions should guarantee citizens that no technological or biological risks will be taken by research, governments or companies unless such risks are debated collectively and transparently. At present, there can be no question of delegating these questions to "experts" or allowing them to take decisions without an explicit agreement from civil society at national level (e.g., GMOs, cloning, choices on energy, etc.).
•	Likewise, any orientation of production should be done by taking into account the loss of biodiversity it causes and the absence of certainty of harmlessness should not be a justification for continuing in this direction.

"The principle of breaking down partitions between disciplines and synergy"

•	Seeking solutions for a given problem must also done outside its traditional confines by multidisciplinary teams, in order to generate optimal synergy between techniques, sectors and professional fields. The solution for a construction material problem could be found in the agricultural sector (production of raw material), while a problem of public health or excess consumption of fossil fuels may be solved by using the capacities of the rural world. "Closing production cycles" should become a systematic reflex when seeking alternatives.

“The principle of an energy balance”

•	Europe must achieve an energy balance as soon as possible, i.e. produce as much as it consumes, and explain the means and timetable it intends to implement to attain it.
•	The price of non-renewable energy should be proportional to its consumption and not the contrary (large consumers paying more than small ones, as opposed to the decreasing rates presently in force).
•	Direct aid should be reoriented to the poorest, without artificially decreasing the price of the energy supplied.

“The principle of sobriety should take precedence over recycling surpluses”

•	Problems linked to the consumption of materials and energy and that of waste management are related. Europe should incite people to consume less before considering recycling procedures.
•	The use of renewable materials should be made obligatory rather than optional.

D)	The principle of a welcoming, accessible, active and useful rural world

The place of agriculture and the functions of the countryside have been the subjects of much debate. Historically, agriculture has played a primordial and sometimes exclusive role in shaping the rural world, though new social needs born from changing lifestyles, foods, demography, the age pyramid in Europe, and new international interdependency have led us to identify new uses for European rural territories.
Our group agreed that European rural territories should and can play a role at the heart of contemporary Europe and the challenges facing it. Potentially, they have a large number of advantages that make them capable of solving some of the problems facing our civilisation. It would be a terrible error to see the countryside as a place only for producing raw materials for food, by isolating it from the other dimensions composing Europe: cities, the tertiary sector, education, politics, etc.
We believe that these vast spaces of plains, mountains and forests are not just a “background”, a decor in which we live out the theatre of our activities and our lives. They are first and foremost a source whose wealth is far more varied than that of simple supplier of food:

-	It is a space of depollution and recycling as was stated in point C.
-	It is a reserve of minerals and other raw materials for our activities.
-	Thus it forms a huge reserve of work and labour for Europeans.
-	The countryside is a place where new relationships between consumers and producers and between human beings and their food can be forged. 
-	It is a space where new types of care for both body and mind can be invented.
-	Rural territories provide divisions appropriate for local responsibilities, learning about democracy and inventing new forms of governance.
-	They are also places for welcoming “outsiders”(he/she who is different), integration and cementing social cohesion.
-	The countryside is where the beautiful often remains intact and where harmony, that source of balance and strength, is still alive.

Sub-principles and rules 

“The principle of considering rural territories as capable of fulfilling any function whatsoever”

•	We share the conviction that the countryside is not restricted to farm activities alone. European policies should recognise this multi-functionalism and seek to develop all types of activity in the rural world, in an attempt to link them together. 
•	Priority should be given to job creation in decisions made to develop rural territories.
•	Regional development strategies should not dissociate considerations concerning cities from industrial areas or the countryside. The territory should be perceived globally and each of its spaces should be evaluated in terms of its resources and needs.
•	European “zoning”, which distinguishes areas eligible for agro-environmental subsidies, supposes that other areas would be dispensed from applying rules of sustainability. Public subsidies for more sustainable methods should not only be used to offset natural, social or historic handicaps, but a basic rule that should be applied to every territory.
•	Rural territories are not only spaces for work but also for living. Thus their development should not be confused with economic growth.

“The principle of multi-functional agriculture”

•	We also observe that the production of foodstuffs occurs in association with the production of other goods and services (landscaping, tourism, etc.). Europe needs to continue reflection on the means and conditions for rewarding these supplementary functions of agriculture.
•	Negotiations between farmers’ and consumers organisations should be encouraged to permit the direct contractualisation of these supplementary functions.

“The principle of decision-making at the level of the problem concerned”

•	To take into account the diversity of each situation and involve every citizen in the future of their territory, local consultations must be organised so as to choose the solutions, among those possible, that best correspond to the wishes of the inhabitants.

“The principle of preserving the countryside and its beauty”

•	Decisions regarding all types of development in rural territories, especially concerning tourism, should respect as much as possible the elements and customs that characterise places, cultures and relationships between areas and nature.
•	Types of countryside and practices related to them can be sources of collective wealth. These areas should be given special status (as with the UNESCO world heritage sites) and those that live in them and use them should be made responsible to future generations and other European citizens. 

“The principle of privileging diversity and historic heritage in rural development”

•	Special attention should be given to products and the places where they are produced as with the French practice of authentic local production labels.
•	Likewise, it is of interest to support products whose specific nature stems from their method of production (craft production, ancient know-how, etc.).
•	Consumption of regional products should be encouraged by concentrating production, packaging and transport in the same place.

“The principle of conserving added value in the same territory”

•	Encourage production/distribution that maintain added value in the same territory. This entails collective involvement in the territory’s development and capacity to endure and links of positive interdependence between its different actors. Thus the territory can conserve a chance of acting on its own future.

“The principle of an accommodating rural territory”

•	Rural accommodation capacities are insufficient. Rural Europe should be able to accommodate European citizens in different ways (education, exchanges between farmers, students, elected representatives, functionaries, study trips, twinning, etc.).

E. The principles of European reunification 

The fact that most of the participants came from the former “Eastern Bloc” obviously had a strong impact on our discussions. In particular, our reflections were fuelled by the ERW participants from the Bruges Group (Piotr, Monica, etc.). Our debates highlighted several points:

-	I have already mentioned how positive the decision was not to have dealt with the question of East-West relations in isolation. Our debates focused on one and the same subject: Europe. 
-	The method used to achieve this was a factor of mutual comprehension in itself. The fact of debating on the values and principles on which ONE Europe should be built convinced us of the need to achieve political union before a technical-economic one. To start with, this approach allowed us to go beyond our differences; if we had considered the enormous range of diversities, priorities and urgencies that characterise each of our countries progress would have been impossible.  
-	The combined effect of having thought together on the same subject (as if one Europe existed already) and by taking the approach of common principles based experiences and proposals also led us to formulating the process of enlargement in another way. In fact the notion of enlargement implies that the larger of two entities absorbs the smaller. We became aware that there are now two Europes, both of which are in crisis. The desire (on the face of it) is to build a third Europe that is not simply a Western Europe stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals. Each entity must find ITS OWN direction to succeed . These directions are determined both by the objective, which is the third Europe we must define together by starting with its political foundations, but from obviously different points of departure. Thus this process is more akin to unification (some even spoke of “reunification”) than enlargement.
-	Furthermore, we were also obliged to make a third observation due to the presence of certain participants who came from neither Western nor Eastern Europe, i.e. tomorrow’s Europe cannot be built if it does not also play a role and take on its responsibilities in the rest of the world, especially when confronted by economic, political and military instabilities in neighbouring countries. This third Europe will lack credibility and legitimacy unless it contributes to establishing peace and equity at home (here we spoke of Cyprus, former Yugoslavia, Chechnya, etc.) and in the immediate vicinity, especially in North Africa and the Middle East. We were struck by this aspect of European construction throughout the Peles meeting: no Europe without peace and perhaps no peace without a responsible and generous Europe.

The sub-principles and rules

“A political Europe before an economic Europe”

•	Europe cannot be built without PRIOR agreement on the type of EUROPE WE ALL WANT. The current process amounts to asking the countries of the East to get on the train without being able to give their choice of destination and without knowing the price of the ticket. European citizens must exercise their rights at every social and professional level in order to ensure that their choices on the principles which should govern are taken into account.
•	The members of parliament of Eastern and Central European countries should also sit in the European Parliament as from now.

“The same rights and duties as in the West, but with different paths and schedules”

•	The diversity of situations between our countries should not be allowed to mask our common destiny. The same principles should be applied throughout Europe, though it is vital that respect be given to the rhythm of each country.

“Specific protection for the countries of the East during the double transition”

•	Countries in the process of membership should not be obliged to completely open their markets in only one step. It is perfectly legitimate for each country to preserve its rural environment and production systems and resources while each party adapts reciprocally. 

“Genuine equality in subsidies between European states”

•	The fact that the West provides very little support for the East and the obvious inefficiency of existing aid programmes makes it necessary to include European civil society in negotiations on the subject. A genuine unification process cannot be seriously considered with the procedures and amounts currently in play.
•	Europe must be ready to unify its policies before it is too late. Some of the aid available now in the West should be used to assist candidate countries. It could be used for emergency ecological protection programmes and for certain “European heritage” areas. 
•	The current rules and methods of public finance for rural territories in the West cannot be immediately extended to the East; however, all new measures should henceforth be formulated “as if” they applied to the whole of Europe.
•	Solidarity between European territories involving regions of the West and East should be developed via twinning schemes at different levels (local authorities, universities, schools, districts, professional organisations, etc.). European institutions should provide finance in their budgets for their involvement in such exchanges.

“Give civil society in the East a genuine opportunity to express itself”

•	Representation of Eastern and Central European countries in enlargement negotiations is unsatisfactory. On the one hand, because it is limited to the “experts” and functionaries of the candidate states and, on the other, because rather than a dialogue between two parties the West dictates it conditions via a monologue that accepts only one response (cf. the texts from Bruges on this subject) .