CONTENTS

•	Preamble										

•	Plenary opening session								

•	Report on democratic governance for Europe		GOV			

•	Report on migrations and multicultural citizenship	MIG			

•	Report on work and social organisation			WORK			

•	Report on the European rural world			RUR			

•	Plenary Mediterranean session							

•	Plenary closing session								

•	Perspectives									

•	Breakthroughs									

•	List by topic									

•	Distribution of participants							

•	Evaluation and elements of response						

Preamble

This work is the most exhaustive report possible given the elements in our possession.
It has been compiled on the basis of notes taken on the computers available to the four work groups, recordings on mini disc made by Marti during the plenary sessions, the restitutions presented during the meeting by the participants of the groups, the co-ordinators' personal notes, etc. 
Rather than restitute all the works, since the debates of the topical sessions and sub-groups belong to the memory of the participants, this document aims to convey as concretely as possible the object of the debates of these 130 European citizens gathered together for the first time to reflect on the subjects that concern them. 

Unfortunately, the recording was unable to capture the debates; consequently, only the interventions from the "chairperson's" table could be heard and transcribed.

This work is composed of a main part covering the whole of the four topics, including the intermediate and final restitutions. Only the "perspectives" have been separated and placed after the topical reports, as they were written only at the end, during the closing session, though they are of interest to all the topics and thus to all the participants.

The plenary sessions have been ordered chronologically. The transcription of the session lasting an hour and a half dedicated to the participants of non-European countries (Mediterranean basin) is placed before the closing session. This plenary session was planned so as to be as interactive as possible; we asked the speakers to make brief presentations and give as much time as possible to dialogues between Europeans and non-Europeans. The result was not very satisfactory given the time allowed; though other opportunities for genuine debate may occur.

Several lists are available at the end of the work. These are lists by topic, and the participants' addresses and profiles. A document has also been produced on the distribution of the participants and a synthesis of the evaluations based on the answers to a questionnaire sent to the participants during the summer 2001, following the Peles meeting.

We hope this document will be useful and agreeable to you, if only as a souvenir of the European Continental Assembly organised by the Alliance for a responsible, plural and united world.
My thanks to all of you.

Plenary opening session of the European Continental Assembly, Peles, Romania 

•	Speech by Dacian Ciolos, the Romanian host of the Continental Assembly

Welcome to Romania, a country that surprises many people when hearing about it and who are astonished when they take the time to get to know it. If we are to believe the geographers, Romania is an island of Latin culture amidst a Slave sea, with a population of 23 million of which a third live in the countryside. After 40 years of communism, Romanians now demand recognition of their place in a region to which they belong historically, culturally and by inspiration: that region is Europe. This is the reason why we offered to host the European Assembly organised by the Alliance for a Responsible, Plural and United World. We want to show that Europe is not limited to its current political borders and that its future construction must occur eastwards as well as westwards, southwards and northwards; and with all those who are affected by the actions of Europeans, either directly or indirectly. This is why you have been invited here, all you who come from countries belonging to this European region. Therefore we welcome all the participants and wish you good luck, much inspiration and wisdom during the five days of debate and construction. We hope that this meeting will be fruitful and that it will entice you to return to Romania to see the country that lies beyond the airport of Otopeni, the road between Bucharest and Sinaia and the castle of Peles. There is much to be discovered, but unfortunately, during these five days, there will be very little time to make genuine contacts with Romanians given our heavily loaded programme. However, we hope that the entire reception team will show you what Romanian hospitality is capable of and we greet you as both tourists and friends. Good luck with your work.

•	Speech by Avram Fitiu, President of Agroecologia, the institution hosting the Continental Assembly
Unfortunately this speech was inaudible.

•	Speech by Manola Gardez Rauss,

I shall not express the pleasure with which we welcome you once again. 
Both you and we are here, which is the main thing. 
We are together, even though we are fewer than expected. Many participants were prevented from coming at the last minute, held up by personal or professional reasons. However, I spare a thought for those who could not come for reasons independent from their will and in particular for a Palestinian friend who was unable to go to Amman airport in Jordan because the borders have been closed. Also for all our other friends, some of whom are here, who live in difficult circumstances.

There are about 140 of us here, though many around the world will be able to follow our proceedings remotely. Thanks to Dacian, we are 140 lucky persons welcomed to stay in the midst of these superb mountains, at the heart of the continent that concerns us today.
140 persons from precisely 39 countries, with their specificities and cultures, but today we shall join together around the same table. We have five days of meetings and debates. I would not go as far as to say that this occasion is unique, but in any case we have been offered an exceptional opportunity.
Without wanting to make flagrant shortcuts, or in any way make inaccurate parallels, I believe that this meeting that we have wanted, desired and organised for over a year, at least in the spirit in which we have prepared it, is being held at the right time. It is in line with recent events such as Seattle, Prague, Nice, Porto Alegre, Quebec, and Genoa tomorrow, which, failing great innovation, are nonetheless “alternative” expressions organised by civil society. No doubt, many other such events will come.
If only to mention the World Social Forum, the only event in which I participated, we are here today in a kind of prolongation, though in different form. 
Together at this European Continental Assembly, we shall:
obviously get to know each other;
and certainly pool our knowledge and resources.
I divine it to be a moment of fruitful reflection for proposals.
I have the presentiment that it will be a place of reawakening and replenishing energy to overcome the powerlessness that we sometimes feel as individuals in defending certain values and ideas;
I hope it will be a creative space for developing together a project for society, our project for society, and diffusing it more widely.
And, above all, I hope that it will be a festive moment.

My name is Manola, it is my first name, that by which I am called by those who know me; it has the advantage of not being very common. I have been working at the Charles Leopold Mayer Foundation for the Progress of Humankind for six years.
Very briefly, for those that do not know it or have never heard of it, the FPH was founded according to the will of a chemist and physicist of Irish-Swiss-French origins who made a fortune, but who wanted to use his money to finance projects that matched his ethics, principles and philosophy. He left this fortune to his private secretary so that she could create this foundation and perpetuate its aid, subsidies and finance to all those in need of them to further human progress.
In the French name, "Fondation pour le Progrès de l'Homme", "homme" means humanity as whole.
Briefly, the FPH started with two committees, one was scientific while the other was "humanist", dealing with perceptions, society, education, etc. These two committees received demands for grants and were responsible for responding to them in accordance with the specifications left by Charles Leopold Mayer.
The management of this foundation was taken over from the outset by the son of Mayer's private secretary, Pierre Calame, who became president for several years though he is now its Director General for technical reasons.
The problem with Pierre is that he not only wanted to make the Foundation what Mayer hoped it would be, but he is also someone with many ideas. Thus, in a few years, from a foundation that gave grants to the projects that were proposed to it, it became one that had its own projects, completely open to the outside and which develops projects with every partner possible. These projects are now organised into seven programmes run by the foundation and we develop them in partnership with institutions, NGOs, and associations that carry out the same activities, and which have the same basic ethics and philosophy.
Very quickly, the programmes are:
ECO: an economy for a united society 
INO: sciences, techniques and society 
DIV: inter-cultural relations
ETA: relations between the State and society 
APM: family farming, societies and globalisation
PAX: construction of peace
and AVE: Future of the Planet, which supports the movement of the Alliance for a responsible, plural and united world. The word "plural" was added recently.
The Alliance is a collective movement without a formal legal structure. It is the emanation of the reflections of a number of persons, along with Pierre Calame, who at the beginning of the nineties carried out a review of the state of the world and its crises, crises that we are still experiencing today. They organised continental assemblies of smaller size than this and were led to drawing up a statement in the form of a Platform for a responsible and united world. This Platform, which is still a reference in the Alliance today, was sent to their acquaintances, friends and partners with the question: "What do we do now? It's all very well to say that things are going badly, but how can we progress to make them better?"
Some of the addressees signed the Platform and returned it, expressing their agreement with its diagnosis of the urgent need to change things. Thus the Alliance was born and this collective movement began.
It now has over 3,000 signatories. But what is an ally, apart from someone who works according to the principles set out in the Platform and gives their address in order to receive the information and communication tools that we develop at the Foundation? Many other people participate at our meetings and work with us without being included in the directory. This directory also includes collective signatures (even though no physical signature is required) that represent associations and organisations numbering from just a few persons to international entities that number several thousand persons.
In my opinion, the task of counting and knowing how many we are is not only difficult but rather pointless. What is important is that we are here at the right time and place.
Therefore the Alliance has grown and became quickly aware of the need to structure itself. This structuring has occurred on the basis of three directions:
The most obvious direction was the topical path, that is to say people working on a subject or problem that in most cases is their professional subject and who develop reflection in partnership with as many actors as possible on the topic in question.
The geocultural or regional path. This gathers a group of individuals in the same place or sphere who, generally, also work on a topic. The best example in the Alliance is the geocultural group of the great lakes region of Africa which works on the problem of searching for peace, unfortunately one that affects their daily lives. This group allows them to provide their regional vision of the problem.
Lastly, there is the collegial path, which is the last of the three groups to develop. What is a college in the Alliance? This subject gave rise to long debate. It is everything except corporatism, it is a group of people in the same socio-professional milieu (for example, teachers, jurists, scientists, politicians, elected representatives, unemployed persons, peasants, etc.) who present their views on the challenges that confront us; their collegial identity can provide new approaches and new visions.
The Alliance's organisation and its need for structure have developed through the organisation of human links. This is to say that the allies quickly needed communication tools, which is how an international review, the continental reviews, web sites, a directory, databases with experience records, etc. all started. The people involved gave themselves roles, since in addition to the workshop and college co-ordinators, a pool of facilitators was set up to implement the idea that has always guided the Alliance: that one must stop and think at a certain point in order to deepen insight into things. The step of making proposals is also important. This entails stopping the process of taking stock and passing on to the fruit of our work, making proposals. These may be in contradiction with other opinions, which leads to confrontation, opening up the widest possible debate. However, these proposals are snapshots that can obviously be improved and reflection continued. Today we present you with our proposals to improve things, to make world governance correspond with our hopes and make European governance the ideal framework for the Europe we really want to live in. This is in the spirit of our time, what is possible and above all feasible. This means that the feasibility of the proposals is obviously primordial. This stage of formulating proposals, which took place during 2000 and 2001 and one of whose aims was the continental forums, was difficult to set up because it is much easier to continue saying what is wrong rather than to stick one's neck out and take the risk of saying what is possible, feasible and doable. The 2000-2001 process had been planned for a long time and, initially this proposal stage was called "The General Council of the Planet", a title too imbued with French culture to be used by the other allies. In practice, this took place with the organisation of meetings that were as open as possible, which is to say international, for each topical workshop and college. As for the regions, this was organised in the form of continental meetings and we are one of five such meetings being held today in Africa, Asia, the Americas, Europe and the Arab world. These five meetings will take place at the same time; we are the first to start and a day will be devoted for joint work with all the other meetings on June 21, when we can communicate with them. All the participants of these assemblies will work together at the same time, pursuing the same objectives. 
These five assemblies are the first part of this process carried out through 2000-2001 of which the next step will be the World Citizens Assembly at Lille, in the north of France, in December, once again organised by the Alliance for a responsible, plural and united world.
Just a word about our assembly. How has it been thought of and conceived? One day I woke up to read messages from other continents, allies and foreign friends that were starting to prepare their assemblies and became aware that not much was being done by the Europeans. At the time, I was co-ordinating the topical workshop "The Renewal of Politics" and, with the friends of this workshop, we decided to take on the organisation of this continental assembly, since we felt it was important that it should take place.

A preparatory meeting with the most active European allies validated the idea that this assembly was important, and that it was an integral part, along with the other continental assemblies, of this approach to seek proposals and identify the four subjects of the assembly: 
GOV, democratic governance for Europe
MIG, migrations and multicultural citizenship
RUR, the European Rural World 
and WORK, work and social organisation. 
Why choose these four subjects? Because they seem to embody the major problems of our time and they are wide enough to cover a number of challenges that confront us daily. Obviously, there are other challenges, especially education. Why isn't education one of our subjects, since it is at the very core of these challenges? Without doubt for reasons specific to the Alliance, for which the education workshop in Europe is not very active. It has been given attention, but the other continents have focused on it more. Also because we had to cope with the limits of the allies present at the preparatory meeting and with the interests of the persons in the initial kernel, that is to say the members of the "Renewal of Politics" workshop.
The World Citizens Assembly (WCA) at Lille will be the occasion for gathering all these proposals from around the world, and which, we hope, will reflect the widest diversity manifested by 400 participants. The identification of these 400 persons represents a rigorous approach regarding populations. Rather than focusing on national proportionality, we chose a system based on the world's major regions. 
The Charter for a responsible, plural and united world will be presented to the Assembly, in addition to the proposal booklets.
The Charter is the expression of the need for a third pillar, in addition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which concerns individuals, and the United Nations Charter, which concerns relations between nations and societal relations. A third pillar was lacking which dealt with the environment, and relations between individuals and the planet. This Alliance Charter, now called the Charter of Human Responsibilities, started as an emanation of the Earth Charter, born at the Rio Summit of 1992, since Pierre Calame had long been a member of the international committee of the Earth Council.
The Charter of Human Responsibilities could be the emanation of different charters, for example, the Africans are writing one for their continent. Some people have invited us to write one for Europe during our assembly. It us up to us to see if we wish to, if we see the need and especially if we feel it pertinent. If so it will be the European Charter that will then go to Lille as part of the formulation of the World Charter.

Before, I drew a parallel between what we are experiencing here and Porto Alegre. In fact there is real collaboration, I would even say interlocking, between the two events, since many Alliance members were present in Brazil last January when we organised over 40 workshops. Even at a late date, the Brazilian organisers involved us in the preparation, some of them being allies too. Now there is even a proposal to twin the state of Rio Grande do Sul with the Nord Pas de Calais region in which Lille is located. Apart from being organised by people who know each other well and who have worked together before, these two events share common inspirations and complementary approaches, thus there is mutual strengthening between them. The FSM and AMC sprang from the same awareness, ethics and perspectives. (Here, I quote a passage from a document written by Pierre Calame): "Implementing new regulations world-wide cannot be done through economic globalisation, which spreads by opening up markets, or by belief in the market’s self-regulating power and the generalisation of trade relations. The dead end of the current development system makes it necessary to conceive and carry out major changes that should occur by building a world civil society. This civil society is not in the tow of major economic and political powers and is not reduced to simple actions of resistance. It sets its own agenda, or at least it is starting to, and it is formulating its own proposals that take root in alternatives conceived at local level. It demonstrates that another world is possible."
Regarding the similarity of their approaches: the FSM is a forum where militant initiatives meet and will continue to meet; the second, the AMC, is an international work process that places emphasis on the world's diversity and formulating proposals.
Here in Romania, I believe that we have come together for and because of this logic, that of welcoming efforts to build world civil society, even though we are starting by organising it at continental level. It is the will to rethink forms of governance, to be actors of a humanised globalisation in the service of genuine and sustainable development. However, we also know that by working in this direction, we need to create locally, and here and now at continental level we must create the conditions of truly shared and efficient governance.
We must set up a European network that can appropriate the proposals we make and diffuse them widely throughout civil society.
My personal idea, which has also taken root in the minds of some of us in a very close circle of partners, particularly Sandro, would be to use a European journal and a web site, in partnership with every alternative entity that already works in the same direction, whether press agencies, media, the written press, radio, television, etc. that provide "other", alternative sources of information. This is where I count on you, on the network that we are perhaps setting up today, to inform us of what exists in each of your countries. We often hear that civil society does not exist in certain Eastern European countries, though I find this hard to believe and I would like to talk to you specifically about this subject.
Likewise, what are the many and diverse elements that result from the work of each of us and that we shall attempt to organise roughly during these five days? We have thought of them as taking two forms, what I shall call guiding principles and the much spoken of proposals.
The guiding principles are the directions or reference outlines that define the project for the society we aspire to. These principles are a universal vocation and express the evolution of political philosophy, history and how this evolution occurs. For example, ecology, a much misused term, is a guiding principle that has succeeded in coming to the fore, at least in the minds of some. Now other principles need promoting, such as the much-needed return of economics in the service of humankind rather than vice-versa. The proposals represent the quest for a concrete application of these guiding principles in each sector of human activity and thus governance.
Although these principles already lead the way for some in their work and reflections, the proposals are often still to be formulated. These proposals are directly linked to the changes required to transform the course of the current trend of globalisation. Unfortunately, they often require political and cultural action opposed to currently dominant interests. To illustrate these examples of proposals, I shall mention the necessary redistribution of wealth that can, among other things, be achieved by implementing the proposal for a basic income, a subject that you will deal with in the WORK workshop. Likewise, in MIG, you used the electronic forum for six months before this meeting, in which some of you participated, to develop the principle of freedom of circulation and civic participation. This can take the form of a proposal for equal access to political rights for all.
Our meeting today must not remain a simple episode, we must plan and organise this approach further. As organisers, one of our proposals is to organise a process to strengthen European civil society with the aim of opening up a wide debate on these principles and proposals, bearing in mind the European elections of 2004. Our contribution will be to start this debate which in turn should encourage the newly elected parliament to make use of these elements and take on the responsibility of giving Europe a Constitution.
All this will be debated in different forms that you will organise with your topical co-ordinators in the work groups.
I take this opportunity to present them to you now and they will do their utmost so that we can achieve the results desired at the end of the five days.
They work in pairs. 
Sandro Guiglia and Elise Massicard for GOV
Hans Harms and Hugues Puel for WORK
Philippe Cacciabue and Iain Farquar for RUR
Karine Boyer and Paul Oriol for MIG.

To conclude on a less formal note and so that the work done in the groups is as interactive as possible, I invite the participants of the different topical groups to rise and present themselves.
Thank you everyone and thank you for being here.

•	Sandro Guiglia, co-ordinator of the GOV topic

I am Italian and live in Tuscany, a beautiful region of Italy. With Elise we would like to give you a brief presentation of our approach and the subjects to be debated in the "Democratic Governance for Europe" group. We thought about presenting each topic so that the participants of all the groups know the perspectives of the four work topics. However, we are also concerned with preventing reflection from wandering.
Since we have only been able to choose four topics, despite the obvious fact the complexity of our questioning implies far wider examination, we can at least hold our four topics in rein for they are interconnected.
Our group will define the term "governance" since it is a term used in a rather new way, at least in the Latin world and it can be ambiguous. 
Our point of departure was awareness of globalisation, awareness that every citizen of the world, the whole of humanity, has a common destiny. This applies both to the risks inherent to the survival of the planet and to economic globalisation, occurring side by side with technical and cultural globalisation. Manola mentioned this earlier. Many of us are against globalisation in its economic form; however, we accept the good that other forms of globalisation can bring. Once again, we need to agree on terms and examine these aspects. What is certain, since the last world war and the demise of real (or so-called real) socialism, is that governance is needed at world-wide level. Awareness of the magnitude of the challenges facing us occurred at the Rio Summit, where we saw that we were in the process of leaving a poisoned and fragmented world to future generations.
So what form should this world governance take and who should govern?
Many of us are sure that current world governance does not exist, is inefficient or even dangerous. The United Nations Organisation, founded after the Second World War, was seen as the embodiment of a major concept, that of the sovereignty of states. However, as the victors were the major powers, they gave themselves the right of veto, later granted to Russia and then China. There is nothing fortuitous about the rich countries of the Western world starting up the G5, then the G7 and now the G8 to form alliances. It is the all powerful and above all rich that have decided to manage the world's problems. Bush's recent decision on the Kyoto agreement proves this point: "nothing must interfere with the interests of the West!"
The feeling now is that in reality those who really manage the future of the planet are multinational corporations and international finance, or what I would call speculative finance in that it has no link with productive activities.
So we can consider that the economic takes precedence over the political, since although states still hold great power, they have lost control over the economy on which nations were based and built themselves during the nineteenth century. This loss of control over the economy has resulted in the corresponding loss of the capacity to redistribute revenues, the wealth produced and the loss of the capacity to achieve consensus within countries, through the downsizing of the Welfare State.
As for Europe, under the heading "What foreign policy for Europe?" we must still look at the problem of strong American presence (without taking an anti-American stance) that remains a huge influence. We must also be brave enough to deal with the influence of NATO, which was founded as a joint defence system but has now turned into an international police force.
All these subjects of reflection lead to us to believe that we must build a new form of governance. We could imagine a type of governance that does not use the same current structure of nation-states, that is to say a vertical structure with a president who would govern the world. Rather, we think in terms of multi-nodal government with agreements between nodes to protect their respective diversity. This could be achieved by setting up regional centres (not necessarily continental ones). In view of this we wondered how to go about constituting and developing the European regional centre, which raises the question of the European Union, federation or confederation. So we want to see how we can build a European regional centre capable of contributing to world governance (which is both our starting point and our goal). This does not entail building a system but carrying out an innovative experiment. For example, the federation of the United States was born from a war of liberation, and was completely different from the approach we take in the construction of Europe, with all its differences, a Europe that has fought for centuries and which now seeks unity in diversity, to constitute a new form of governance. 
The other subject is that of sketching out a European project. This is the reason we have chosen not to invite participants from only the fifteen countries of the Union or its 26 future countries, but to extend our invitation to the countries of the continent and neighbouring countries, that is to say states that will approach Europe in order to build a utopian project together, in the positive meaning of the term.
Today, a Portuguese friend and I said to each other that realism is impossible without utopia, though real utopia is impossible without realism. This is the type of approach we want to take. 
Why create a European project? Above all for European citizens (for those who live on the continent), to give globalisation a direction, and I add a personal view, to fight against economic globalisation which risks destroying other forms of globalisation, and to invent and develop new forms of democracy better adapted to the resources of today.
How? We want to put forward the advantage of civil society: that is to say we think that civil society must develop greater force to debate the responsibility and organisation of nation-states, the institutions that govern our countries at different levels and the future of Europe. Hence the problem of knowing how to strengthen civil society and how to start organising concrete conditions for the possible contributions of this civil society.
These are the hypotheses we want to work on in our group.
I'm sure you understand that the four topics of our assembly are closely linked and we must succeed in preserving the whole at the end of our journey.
Very briefly, I would like to say that the idea of European unity sprang from need for peace, with the slogan "No more wars in Europe". The founding fathers of Europe gave pragmatic impetus to this idea, working step by step towards an initial structure. However, this approach is no longer enough, since they now represent steps backward. We have reached the point where we above all need the courage to make a cultural leap and get rid of the selfishness of States, regions and provinces all looking out for themselves. Two positions predominate in our already unified Europe: the traditional position of those who want to limit unification to markets and the economy and, on the contrary, those who want political union. Obviously, we take this second position, that of working for political union.
Consequently, we have chosen to limit ourselves in GOV to a few sub-topics that Elise will now present.

•	Elise Massicard, joint co-ordinator of the GOV topic 

I shall make a brief presentation of the five sub-topics on which we started work on the electronic forum:
- The first topic is the construction of European public opinion. We are confronted by one of the main contradictions of European construction, since on the one hand we have a European Parliament and institutions, while on the other hand political parties and elections are organised nationally, and unions and the media are national. Trans-European debate simply does not exist, neither on a continental scale nor on that of the Union. Likewise, very few organisations of civil society are genuinely European.
The absence of European public opinion is one of the major reasons for the weakness of current European construction. It is obvious that European public opinion cannot be built by decree and it requires much time.
This sub-topic includes different facets among which is how European citizenship is envisaged. What is a European citizen? Does it necessarily mean being a national of one the Union's member countries or of the Union itself? At present, we feel that civil society cannot take the place of representatives whose legitimacy is gained through elections. However, it could constitute a counterweight, express orientations and enter into debate with politicians and elected representatives. How can the different actors of civil society, such as the media, intellectuals, social movements, organisations, and unions become involved in this process? What can and should be the role of active citizens to stimulate other actors in this direction?
- The second subject is: What institutional form should European governance take? This subject covers a huge area, since apart from the reform required for European institutions, we are confronted with myriad levels of decision. The power of governments is declining with the transfer of authority to lower administrative levels, whether these be municipalities and different types of territorial councils, or different types of federal governments. So there are many levels of decision which tends to make procedures opaque rather than transparent, also leading to inefficiency. We think that one of the major stakes is to imagine how these different levels of decision and action can be linked in view to implementing active subsidiarity at every level, from municipal councils to federal governments. This trend towards an increased number of scales could result in greater democracy, though only in the framework of co-operative and unified subsidiarity. This trend has caused certain intellectuals and political scientists to speak of a Europe of regions, an idea that frightens the most centralised nation-states. However, we need to consider the hypothesis of a European federation composed of national and federal states, that do not necessarily conform to a single model but which, on the contrary, permit the distribution of power at several levels. 
- The third subject is that of European political union in the perspective of world governance. We cannot speak of the Europe we want without taking into account that it is part of a larger world and that, whatever the case, it will be shaped by new and changing trends. On the contrary, we must attempt to instil positive impetus to this evolution by asking ourselves how Europe could contribute towards achieving the necessary and urgent goal of world governance. This first entails reflection on the role of European unification, the traditional approaches of foreign policy and joint defence in view to operating independently from NATO. Secondly, and in a wider framework, this process should be seen as part of the innovative construction of world governance. And, finally, perhaps, how can we go beyond Western monopolisation and American hegemony. Can it be achieved by international organisations or by multilateral treaties. Thus it means working on the emergence of multi-centric world governance and the role of Europe within this constellation.
- The fourth subject is globalisation and political control over the economy. The power of governments has certainly been diminished by economic globalisation, and reflection is necessary on how to recover this lost authority to carry out public action in the face of the global economy, by building an intermediate level of government at regional and continental levels. Here we are speaking of control over speculative financial transactions and development aid.
- The fifth and final subject is a European constitution. The result of the discussions that took place on the electronic forum shows that the European constitution has two main dimensions. The first is the relationship between European and national rights. Clarification is needed of the rights that the European Union requires that each country respects and specific rights that complete and bolster national rights, since we are in an increasingly complex situation. This highlights the problem of ensuring that the rights are the same for every European citizen, while preserving the diversity of rights in member countries provided they are consistent with European law. Work on constitutional law could solve this problem. The second dimension is the importance of means to spur the participation of civil society in this process of reflection on Europe. There is a need for popular participation by aware citizens, actors in society, etc., to define the Europe we want. Furthermore, the aim of drafting a European Constitution, already on the European political agenda, could permit civil society and community movements to launch a wide-ranging debate on the Europe we want. Thus it requires community participation in defining the main elements to be included in the constitution.
Thank you for your attention. 

•	Hans Harms, co-ordinator of the WORK topic 

I am glad to see you here. I remember that during the meeting we had last year in preparation of the meeting of today, the idea was to organise cruises on North, West, Baltic and Mediterranean sees, but you can imagine what is the difficulty to find adequate such boats, so we gave it up. Finally we are here and I think it is a really good choice.
I think we have two obligations during these days within the working group Work and social organisation : as Dahrendoff said, we have to change the homo economicus to an homo ludens, so our first obligation is to have a good time.
But our second obligation, which is very important for the next generation, there is a lot of problems to solve and we cannot go on with a strategy of postponing them all. I think we really should start to work on them and to find concrete solutions, and this is our second obligation.
I think that the two most important problems are : 
One is democracy, that means that if our administrative, political system is not able to develop the right decisions on time, then how can we do anything, how can we change things ? And I think that is clear that the representative democracy is in crisis. We don’t trust our politicians, there is a big disconfidence ; and our politicians depend on the lobbies (the best example is the new president Bush who doesn’t sign Kyoto because his campaign was paid by some important enterprises and now he hasn’t the capacity to sign Kyoto when the majority of the population of United States would like this. So, I think it is clear that democracy is in crisis and we have to rethink democracy, we have to change things and experiment new things.
By the way this is what I do when, as professional, I am working with citizen participation model developed by a professor in Germany and I am working with this mainly in Spain but also in Belgium.
But the second important question is : how do we organise our societies ? And so far we depend on one unique mechanism to organise ourselves and that is work, or better said labour. Labour guaranties us an income, an access to social security, but it also defines our social role and our personal identification. And this mechanism is in crisis. Today labour is no longer the solution for all our social and economical problems, but it is the cause, it originated this problem. If you think about, not just unemployment, but also marginalisation, dualisation, poverty, the role of women and youth in our societies, the relations with third world countries, etc… all these things are directly related to work. We don’t work anymore to produce things we need but we produce things to guarantee employment, to guarantee work and labour.
And the question is : can we go on with this, should we come back to an economical growth which guarantees an employment for anybody, or should we rethink this mechanism and try to find other mechanisms, alternative mechanisms or at least complementary mechanisms ? I don’t say that work is out, is finished, end of work ; work would be an important part in our future as well, but a less important. So there is another question then if we dedicate less time to work, what are we going to do with the rest of the time ? If you read this book of Jeremy Rifkin, he reflects about it and he says we have two possibilities : one, we become just objects of the leisure industry, that means more television, more channels, more films, more leisure parks and so on…or to recover, to regain more civil society, that means more direct implication, participation in our neighbourhoods, in our municipalities, in the decision making processes and so on.
So in this sense, our meeting is an attempt to organise social society, on an European continental level, because we are all talking about Europe but the European society doesn’t exist, the European citizen doesn’t exist. All the decisions made by the European Commission or by the European administration are just negociations between national point of views, and everybody defends its national interest. There is no common point of view. I feel European but I think I am one of the few. I think this is one of the ideas to come here together, this is an attempt, a try to create a kind of European continental civil society. In this sense this is an experience and we should, at the end, evaluate if that’s really work. We have to evaluate if that kind of meeting between people from different countries, societies and cultures who think about the big important line of the future, of the development of this continent is efficient, and we have to ask to ourselves what do we want for the future of this continent, the future of our children. And this is a mechanism, an experience which is useful and could be used for other questions in the future.
That’s all for the moment, I don’t want to go too much into details about our working group ; I think we will present you our results better at the end. 
Thank you very much.

•	Philippe Cacciabue, co-ordinator of the RUR topic

Unfortunately, the beginning of his speech was not recorded.

…However, it is difficult in global systems to understand our relations with others and with the biosphere and we feel that rural areas are good laboratories for relearning how to live. In the seventies we often heard the slogan "think globally, act locally". It's true but we feel that it is also important to think locally to act globally, which is what we shall probably do during these five days. 
I am a little overwhelmed since I shall probably never have a second occasion of finding myself with my group of 32 persons of 27 nationalities for five days. I am convinced that I cannot waste this occasion to learn to discuss with other Europeans. This means that there is a phenomenal challenge to succeed in sharing something during this time, because if we say "we must build European citizenship, a European point of view, build a project for civilisation, another", then we must do it together. Europe cannot be built without Europeans.
So we are here as if in a small laboratory where we will attempt to create a prototype of an assembly of Europeans. I am full of expectations. I believe that it will be a very rich experience. In our "rural world" group, we will try to do several things, the first of which is to share our concerns. I think we will spend some time in explaining why we are here, what spurs us, what we are working on, our hopes and worries. Secondly, we will try to work on the basis of proposals that have been formulated over several years and more recently on an electronic forum. These proposals are starting points that may help us to define systems of regulation and management of rural Europe and which we hope will contribute towards shaping a responsible, plural, united and sustainable world.
I shall pass the chair to Iain who will outline the four sub-topics that we propose for discussion during the next few days.
Thank you.

•	Iain Farquhar, joint co-ordinator of the RUR topic 

Je m’appelle Iain, je viens de Grande-Bretagne et je vais parler en anglais.
For us, it is a conference that is relatively more developped than the process which has lasted for four years in which we had a major conference in Valencia in 1999, which involved a large number of citizens, and at this conference four themes were identified as being important for the rural world. The first one is sustainable production systems. When the Common Agriculture Policy was conceived, back in 1957, the main concern was to increase production and to feed Europe in the post-war period. And new machinery was available, new technics, new technologies, new higher yielding varieties of the crops, and of course a number of associated agrochemicals which allowed the new varieties to be protected. The general approach that is or was developed in the post-war period involved a very careful and intensive use of technology. Its purpose was, in a sense, to control and to tame and to overcome nature so that we could get the maximum yields with the minimum of efforts, the minimum of labour. Back in 1957, it was impossible to foresee that there would be so many negative consequences of this approach, but today of course it is well known that this had very bad impact on soils, on the quality of water, on biodiversity and so on.
More recently, there’s been a growth in a new kind of scientific understanding and a realisation that it is not necessary to use technology against nature, but that it is possible to make much more subtle interventions using other kinds of technologies which allow us to get what we want from nature without actually destroying it in the process. And these new possibilities can offer us great hope. However, the problem is, that in a huge industry like the agriculture industry, there is an enormous inertia and there are considerable number of financial interests which resist change. So for us the key question here is : how can we turn the system around, so that river systems can be cleared up, so that soils which support the crops can be regenerated, so that the impact of agriculture on the quality of air can be improved and so that biodiversity can be reestablished.
We have a number of propositions which clearly I can’t discuss at this stage, hopefully you will become familiar with them at a later stage.
The second sub-theme is food safety and quality. There have been a series of incidences in the European Union which have led to an enormous loss of confidence in the food chain on the part of the European citizens. The most notorious or most well known of these incidents is perhaps the mad cow crisis, BSE, which occured in the United Kingdom. This itself is a good example of the way that an intrusive and badly conceived form of technology was used in order to achieve high levels of production. In this case, animal nutritionists and chemists and engineers became involved in delivering the nutrients for animal feed which would allow the best possible use of milk for cows. They looked for the cheapest sources of the food which were necessary to feed cows, and in the process they recycled the remains of cows and used them to feed cows, as we know. This is right efficient in terms of economics and also seems to be scientifically intelligent and rational, however the results, as we have seen with disaster, when the public heard that cows had been, as it were, forced to become carnassials, to eat their own flesh, the public were extremely shocked, and so were so many farmers, because in the food system, it is not necessary to label the origins of food for animals, it is only necessary to label what the feed contains in terms of proteins, fats, etc. So the farmers also were very shocked to find out what was happening. There have been other incidents in the EU : outbreaks of salmonella, for example, dioxine poisoning in Belgium, use of antifreeze in wine-making in Spain, and in some cases this is because of poorly designed systems, in some cases it was simply the result of corruption or greed.
However, behind these dramatic incidents there are some less acute but continuous causes for concern : food sprayed regularly and treated with a variety of chemical agents and the food which we eat which contains residues which are dangerous for our health.
There is also the problem of fast-food which contains high levels of sugar and salt for example and which can cause hyperacidity for children and obesity in later life.
In the internet forum which preceded this conference, it was suggested that consumers should take responsibilities for choosing their own food more carefully, and that this would put pressure on the food production system. However there is also the question of whether the EU itself has a responsibility to improve the systems of regulation.
The third theme is new contracts between agriculture and society. In the EU we pay three times for our food. We pay firstly at the supermarket, secondly we pay for the support of agriculture and thirdly we pay for the downstream costs of pollution from agriculture. So why should citizens pay to support an agriculture which gives them products that they don’t want and which produces problems in the environment ?
The outset of it is that if our support withdraws from European agriculture, it would collapse. It would be in direct competition with the very productivist regions of the United States for example which have no relationship with culture and which are not required to protect landscapes. If we went down this route we would face the same problems of desertification that are faced in the US and are now facing the European way of life.
Therefore European citizens should be made able to have mechanisms whereby they can choose what kind of agriculture, what kind of countryside and what kind of food they choose to support. And the third theme which deals with contracts between agriculture and society consists of the mechanisms through which citizens can be able to choose the kind of agriculture, landscape and food they want.
The final topic is the enlargement of the European Union. This is a very difficult area. And the European Commission itself is completely blocked at the moment. However, this offers us the great opportunity, as citizens, to come up with our own visions on what can be done and to influence a process for things to be decided by the power that be.
Thank you.

•	Karine Boyer, co-ordinator of the MIG topic

I am going to co-ordinate the workshop on migrations and intercultural citizenship. Obviously, I am delighted to be here today with you in the forum where citizens can express themselves, since the topics and sub-topics on which we have decided to work are crucial for the future of the European Union and the rest of the world. It has been less than ten years since public opinion has become aware of Europe's declining demography, with a corresponding shortage of labour that affects certain sectors and has now become a very serious problem. Therefore in this new economic and demographic context, there is fairly widespread acceptance that the policy known as zero immigration, or that most commonly linked with the image of a fortress Europe, is incapable of dealing with real problems. In parallel, the European Community, which cannot alone presume to speak for the whole of Europe, cannot conceive of its future without the rest of the world. An integrated approach to immigration cannot fail to take into account the consequences on the immigrants' countries and on the immigrants themselves. During our work, we will deal with three topics stemming from the discussions we had in the forums.
The first topic will be co-development, an approach that can help weaker economies to grow by promoting bi- and multilateral co-operation, in view to increasing these countries' wealth. But, contrary to an often commonly shared opinion in European political circles, co-development cannot cancel the phenomenon of migration, though it does relieve some pressure. Consequently, the main challenge for co-development is to invent another type of development for third world countries capable of satisfying the needs of sustainable development free of influence from the West. So we shall attempt to answer the following basic questions: What definition of development should we uphold? How can the human potential of the immigrant's home countries be transformed into genuine prosperity? And, Is modernising lifestyles vital for development?
The second sub-topic is that of opening up borders. It will be approached from the basis of three observations: pressure from migration exists and will continue, though without reaching invasion levels; it is unrealistic to attempt to control these flows and doing so cannot work without violation of basic human rights; and lastly, it harms fluid movements, generating clandestine immigration. Under these conditions, debate is needed on the feasibility of this policy of opening up borders. Obviously, it cannot be achieved by eliminating all controls, limitless access or by ending constitutional laws. So the question we must try to solve is what policy of open borders should be implemented in the place of closed ones?
The third sub-topic is integration policies, since the real challenge for the populations of the host country is learning to live together. Difficulties of integration between long installed immigrant populations and so-called clandestine populations must be seen from a different viewpoint. The first suffer more from job and accommodation discrimination since they are poorly qualified and live in urban ghettos. So we have decided to divide this topic into two, on the basis of integration policies. Initially, this entails reflection on equal rights for immigrant populations so they can play their role of citizens to the full. Thinking in a second group will focus on the conditions for creating an intercultural society rather than a cultural one. The concept of multiculturalism is unclear about relations between people of different cultures and does give enough emphasis to them. The notion of intercultural citizenship is much more interesting when thinking about real interaction between these people. The aim of our work here is to focus on the measures to be implemented so that both new and more established immigrant populations can live better together.
To conclude, migration policy in Europe singularly lacks imagination. We must be a match for these challenges and open up paths in order to set free the spirit of innovation required to give birth to a new political vision for Europe. This is what we, in our workshop, and I am sure all of you in yours, will be trying to do over the next few days.
Thank you.

Restitution of the GOV workshop : 
Democratic European Governance 

Introduction

It is perhaps useful to present the dynamics that led to this meeting. Organised in the framework of the Alliance for a responsible, plural and united world, this continental assembly was the fruit of work done by the "Citizenship and political renewal" workshop. We feel that two characteristics of European construction are unacceptable: a Europe dominated by neo-liberal and free market ideology. 

We felt it important to put forward these considerations during the assembly and, with the participants, seek answers to our main question: What role must civil society play in order to change this trend?
We also felt it important to define new rules and perhaps draw up a European Constitution.
Furthermore, should we first define the system for the Europe we aspire to and then propose enlargement to candidate countries, or on the contrary, go forward with enlargement and only then propose a Constitution?
Thus it was essential to involve the new members as soon as possible in defining "The Europe we want". This is why we made a point of inviting nationals of every country of the European continent to this assembly in Romania. 

In addition, to avoid the effect of a selfish Europe acting as a fortress disinterested in the rest of the world, and its possible role at world level, we also chose to involve Europe's future neighbours (i.e. the countries in the Mediterranean basin), which, moreover, had already been the subject of the European Euro-Med initiative at Barcelona.

To satisfy another requirement for balance, we sought representatives from different cultures: the "governance" group includes 25 different nationalities.
Most of the participants were committed in various organisations and therefore represented the different components of European civil society.

One of the difficulties at the outset was the ambiguity of inviting the participants to reflect on a project for the European Union using as basis a document on the problem of the existing fifteen members, whereas most of the persons present came from non-union countries.

Another challenge in organising this group was that we chose to start the debate via an electronic forum during the six months prior to the assembly; however, certain groups that had been identified late in the day were unable to participate in it. Consequently, the members of the GOV group entered into the debate having different levels of information and consideration. 

A list of themes to be dealt with, identified on the basis of the electronic forum debates, was debated during the first workshop. The group decided to select three of these themes which it felt were the most pertinent:
-	Civil Society 
-	European governance  
-	Europe and the rest of the world 

The work of the 3 subgroups 

Group A: Civil Society (CS)

1. Definition
CS is composed of groups with non-governmental and non-commercial interests as well as persons active in public life. 
However, account must be taken of the differences between nations: each CS has to be thought out by its own actors (associations, NGOs, etc.) and according to the characteristics of each culture.

2. Role
Operational concept: the network must achieve concrete actions

Contribute to changes and evolutions 
Contribution to the public agenda (list of priorities and political agenda)
Transparency and traceability of government decisions 

Socialise individuals for a culture of democracy (cultural and economic life)
Democratisation and the protection of democracy 
Mobilisation of public opinion on the challenges 
Creation of a political arena and discourse on equality, justice, etc.
Integrate excluded groups in society and promote diversity 

Innovate and participate in new policies (new work cultures)
Control over political standards (civic observatories of political management)

3. How can these objectives be promoted?
CS must develop structures for participation by citizens (e.g. alliance). Echanges are needed between national CS to build civil society.

The media: civil society requires good public media. The media needs good legislation. An associative press independent from the finance used by the traditional press. Journalist should take a better approach to the reality of NGOs.

Development of the Internet 

Education: the education of values, cultures and traditions should be part of the minimum curriculum.
Teaching of foreign languages.

The organisations of CS  should integrate the European dimensions of their basic issues in their activities.

The concept of security set up after the Second World War and constitutive of the EU has shown itself to be completely inadequate (the Balkans, etc.), thus CS must act and reflect on the issue of nationalism (clarify the causes and act upstream of possible conflicts). 
In particular work must be done in the areas of youth, twinning, intercultural exchanges, education for peace.

Eliminate the culture of secrecy.

Respect standards in the areas of health, education, etc.
Social security: basic social protection and a minimum income should exist for every European citizen.

What is the common basis for European identity? Peace and a secular culture 

4. Relations between CS and politicians
- Carry out a policy of lobbying to reach the public (enrich discourses, promote new events).
- CS is the basis of social capital.
- The right to be informed.

5. European identity and citizenship 
Geography
Common values 
Duties as European citizen.

Below is an exhaustive list of all the proposals that the "Civil Society" workgroup drafted during a brainstorming session. The underlined element were selected for the following of their reflections and are listed at the end of this list.

1. Transparency and accountability

•	Expert groups of NGOs to monitor / audit / control governmental budget (public alarm)  
•	Prepare regular financial reports of NGO (transparent) and publication 
•	Public debate through media / NGO  
•	Establishing of international audit service for NGOs  
•	Participation of NGOs in decision-making process (consultant)   
•	Circumscribe secret (criteria)  
•	Control through independant observers of implementation of laws  
•	ISO criteria (good practices) for NGOs   
•	Black list of NGOs / White list of NGOs 
•	Participation of NGOs in implementation of policies and laws adopted on the national and European level
•	Ombudsmen for right of information and implementation of policies, laws and decisions taken on the national and European level
•	Compulsory consultation of involved people and NGOs before voting a law 
•	Internship between NGOs  : i.e. this point needs a network of NGOs and information about them: members of a certain NGO would spend time working in another NGO in order to exchange experience, use the results of another NGO research or work, ask to work in a field of the NGO’s specialisation. The work would be free of charge
•	Online NGO forum (activities, reports, budget...)   
•	Providing NGO with transparency and accountability
•	International contribution to independent investigation of abuses  
•	Consultation structures of NGO on local / municipal level
•	System of punishment / sanction on bad NGOs
•	Implementation of transparency on EU level (decisions / budget)
•	FBI of civil society (gov.) Information unit to audit the governmental policies and implementation of decisions, in order to lobby for or against what suits civil society

2. Civil Society Networking

•	European Status of NGOs/CS
•	Directory (intelligent)   
•	Best practices on national NGO centers and international network   
•	Network of NGOs in UE / Outside NGOs for information on UE
•	Exchange of experiences (bad !)   
•	Website for European NGOs (thematic)   
•	Publication of strategic goals for NGOs
•	Hierarchy of levels from local to global   
•	Conference for NGOs on different levels   
•	European e-newsletter   
•	Intersectorial networking 
•	Participation in national forums of NGOs   
•	Creation of links for NGOs (discussion list)
•	Supporting Network 

3. Monitoring European Institutions

•	Create structures (of CS) making regular reports / evaluation consulting  
•	Insert  NGO representatives in expert commissions of UE (observers)  
•	International expertise on National laws in various fields  
•	Study EU accession cases from the point of view of CS  
•	Commission to elaborate global plan at all levels (scheme) 
•	Review shortcomings of European institutions’ definitions of Civil Society and NGOs 
•	Organisation of debates between citizens and European representatives 
•	Link monitoring European Institutions (database)  
•	Information campaign on European Institutions  
•	“ Marco Polos ” of CS in transition countries

4. Public Opinion

•	Awareness campaigns (in different media)  
•	Creating and using alternative media (press releases)
•	NGO supplements in daily newspapers
•	Education towards public opinion (all age groups) especially NGOs 
•	Establishment of information agency on European debates in Central, East and Mediterranean Countries  
•	Research on people’s major concerns  
•	Giving space to CS in TV programmes (broadcasting): either NGOs can pay for time on TV or organise such actions that TV could be invited and interested; or to agree with TV stations on leaving room for activities of civil society and NGOs so they would be broadcasted within TV shows
•	Creation of European political party  
•	Capacitybuilding of NGOs (public relations with media)  
•	European NGO-news on TV (weekly)  
•	Integrate media on NGO activities
•	Mobile exhibition on CS in rural areas  
•	Courses on European construction process in elementary and secondary schools.

5. Democracy promotion

•	Press upon applying direct democracy on local level  
•	Research on shortcomings of democratic process and CS capacities to address them 
•	Influence pressure on vital decisions
•	Haarlem experience in subsidiarity implementation
•	Forum of candidates during election campaigns  
•	Collecting citizen’s views and impose them on authorities 
•	Abolish registration codes of NGOs or facilitate  

6. Increase the involvement of people in CS

•	Municipal Councils of children / youth 
•	More room of expression for youth  
•	Education to participation  
•	Construction of NGO partnerships with State and business sectors  
•	Promotion of voluntarism (scholarships from universities)  
•	Establishing an award for outstanding philanthropists  
•	Improve programs of cooperation exchange between schools on European level  
•	Compulsory learning of 2 foreign languages at school 

* * * *

Summary of the selected elements.

1. Transparency & Accountability
•	Public debate through media/NGO
•	Establishing of international audit service for NGOs
•	ISO criteria for NGOS (list of white/black lists)

2. Civil Society Networking
•	Directory
•	Thematic web site for european NGOs
•	Participation in national forums of NGOs (exchange worldwide)

3. Monitoring European Institutions
•	Civil society structures for making regular reports/evaluation-consultancy
•	Study EU accession cases from the civil society's point of view
•	Information campaigns on european institutions

4. Public Opinion
•	Awareness campaigns
•	Education towards public opinion
•	European news on civil society on TV (Weekly)

5. Democractization & Protection of Democracy
•	Press upon applying direct democracy for local level
•	Research on shortcomes of democratic process & civil society's capacities to address them
•	Collecting citizen's views and imposing them on authorities (citizenship conference)

6. Increase the involvement of people in CS
•	Municipal Councils of children / youth 
•	Promotion of voluntarism (scholarships from universities)  
•	Improve programs of cooperation exchange between schools on European level  

Group B: European governance

Our work can be resumed by the draft of a Constitution. 
This European Constitution should be composed of 4 chapters:

1. Our common vision of Europe
This chapter should be based on our common history, experiences and visions of the future.
Process in progress of the development of a sense of community.

2. The Europe of territories 
Build unity based on subsidiarity at every level, as well as diversity, intercultural relations, multi-lingual societies and inter-territorial relations.

3. The Europe of citizens.
Transparent and globally implemented representative democracy.
Instruments for direct democracy.
Structures and regulations for participation
European democracy should combine a process of representation and one of direct democracy.
Institute referendums and initiatives at European level as democratic procedures independent from national constitutions. 

4. European institutions 
A bicameral system is proposed: 
- a legislative Chamber of the Union, elected directly without national considerations. It would elect a president.
- a Chamber of Territories (nations, regions, municipalities) that would be elected by the member states and replace the existing Council of Ministers. This chamber would appoint and control (on proposal of the president) the executive Commission that would exercise a right of proposal. 

Indirect election 

Direct election 

Delegation by territorial authorities

•	Nations
•	Regions
•	Cities - municipalities

One sole college
(for the whole of Europe)

Entitlement for residents 
> 5 years

Commission

President

Chamber

of

Territories

Chamber

of the

Union

Executive

Legislative

Methods of governance:

- Government on the principle of consultation by taking into account the plurality of the actors involved.
- Definition of the principle of subsidiarity applied in two stages:

A. Institutional subsidiarity 
Normally, all decisions are taken at the level closest to the problem concerned and thus by the people concerned, but 6 conditions must be fulfilled to check that it is the right level of decision:
•	Financial viability: the most interesting level of financing.
•	Solidarity between territories (local authorities), or within the same territory: compensatory and sharing mechanisms.
•	Level of knowledge of the problem: diffusion of know-how via the media, and also the diffusion of the necessary technical knowledge.
•	Respect for the opinions of minorities in decision-making.
•	Integration of the notion of participation in the decision and evaluation process (participation of citizens and civil society).
•	Efficiency of decision-making and agreement of the local community. This implies preliminary work and evaluation after implementation.

A polygon of forces to be controlled 

Preparation for the decision décision

Evaluation of public authorities 
pouvoirs publics

Citizen

Civil  society

      Decision-making efficiency

			

Participation

Inter and intra territorial solidarity olidarité inter et intra territoriale
territoriale

Respect for minorities

Diffusion of knowledge

Techniques	Media

Financial  viability
(quantum)

B. Participatory subsidiarity 
All political power must ask for the participation of citizens and/or civil society, and it must ensure the collaboration of the administration.
It must foster dialogue with civil society or set up a participation process so that any citizen can participate in the process of consideration and decision. This participation by citizens requires the existence of a mediator who is responsible for educating citizens and respecting their views.
Examples of distributing the themes according to different levels:
national level: international ethical questions, equipment, energy, etc.
regional level: territorial development, education, etc.
local level: municipal budgets, local development and infrastructures, etc.

Citizen

Mediation

Political power 

Demand and financing 

Budget 
Local development
Local infrastructures

Federal / National

Regional

Local

Territorial development 
Education
Regional development

Ethics
International
Major infrastructures

Civil society

Administration

Technical and logistic support

Recommendations for the methods of governance:

- A European law on associations: an excellent instrument that should become a prime objective of CS.

- CS should be consulted at every level.
E.g.: French law stipulates that all projects of new law must be studied regarding their impact on the persons concerned by them. 

- Demand the opinion of civil society when formulating any organisation of European governance (example of the White Book on governance).

- Civil society should prepare a constitutional document for submission to popular referendum.

Group C : Europe and the rest of the World

I. Background

•	Globalisation driven by competition in a market context is increasing disparities between “have” and “have not”, between and inside regions, and requires urgent actions.
•	The EU started as a peace model, successfully developed an economic model, and appears as an area of welfare, even if globalisation has lighting many internal social problems.
•	Around the EU many countries are less developed and are less capable of operating in a global economy.

II. The process of enlargement

•	Enlargement is envisaged as a process for bringing some of these neighbouring countries into the EU integration process. The criteria for this enlargement decisions are often unclear.
•	Enlargement is a lengthy process forcing many heavy constraint in the future EU members; some EU neighbours, particularly in the Mediterranean region, fear these constraints and even see then as forms of neo-colonialism.

III. The EU getting closer to its East and its South

•	Getting closer to the neighbours requires infrastructures, information and communication technologies and some incipient forms of institutional mutual recognition.
•	Pure economic cooperation rapidly requires other forms of political, social and cultural cooperation.
•	Economic integration can be conceived as a modular process (with different economic, social, political and cultural components) and requires a flexible approach.
•	Institutional proposals towards flexibility could include a development of the “associate membership” status (today applied only to countries in transition to full membership), enhancing the other forms of institutional cooperation (e.g. “partnerships”). There is a need of this enhancement in order to increase personal movements, contacts of social society, educational relations, etc. Besides full membership there should be ways for a mutual beneficial set of relations between the EU and its neighbours.

IV. A new spirit for the relations between the EU, its East and its South

•	Relations of mutual interest should be developed at all levels of public administration (states, regions, towns), between all sort of private and public enterprises, and between social society entities, ending in the essential basic relation between citizens and societies.
•	The basic instrument for these relations of mutual interest should be the concept of “contract” involving reciprocal responsibilities.
•	Promoters of these social Contracts can be any of the agents of the societal systems, with special references to institutions from the civil society.
•	Basic needs contracts should deal with the joint solution of key problems related to water, energy, food or housing.
•	Cultural contracts should deal with Key issues in education cooperation, cultural communication or information diffusion and media development.
•	Earth contracts should deal with the many joint problems of environmental protection.
•	Democratic contracts should deal with issues such as treatment of minorities, conflict prevention and resolution, education for peace, capacity building and networking in civil society.
•	It is essential that the initiative for these contracts emerges from all partners; the direct active from the East and the South is essential for success.
•	Contracts should have formal characteristics and be subject to transparent evaluation.

V. Final remarks

•	History moves slowly, but problems in Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean are urgent. The EU policies are far from been fully successful.
•	The main problem is probably that the majority of relations are between State Governments, even when dealing with matters of private interest.
•	The proposal for a development of a contractual process in a modular form calls upon other territorial levels of public administration, joining faces with enterprises and non-profit institutions. No societal agent can remain outside of the development process.
•	If the EU succeeds in developing a real social contract with East and its South, it should be a model for other such relations between the industrialised few and the developing many countries.

The first communications 

Introduction by the co-ordinator:

Our group was composed of three types of participant: several participants from the EU, with strong attendance by the EU candidate countries and countries that have not (yet) submitted their candidatures. We also counted on the presence of participants from the Mediterranean basin. This diversity was positive but also led to difficulties. 
We worked well and our restitution highlights three shortcomings in the present European project, which is not ours, though they  exist:
A deficit of world vision: Europe is too disinterested in what is happening in the rest of the world.
A social deficit: the existing social deficit is a serious problem for the entire planet, since absolute priority has been given to economic aspects.
A democratic deficit: Europe has opted for the market and corporate management to the detriment of any political project.

Communication by the Civil Society group

Government is the most conservative structure in society, the market is the most efficient structure in society, it is still civil society being the most flexible (not bound by interests the way market is) structure and the pioneer in bringing change, that carries out the mission of balancing between those two structures to insure equality, democratic values, human rights, multicultural diversity and economic sufficiency. Defining civil society is a complex phenomena. Yet we choose this definition as a basis for our work. Civil society is non governmental, non profit, interest groups and individuals and associations involved in all sorts of social public activities. 

The European model we present on European civil society model embodies a civil society project with different dimensions. Those dimensions revolve around : a culture of peace, tolerance, solidarity, secularism, citizen participation and citizenship. By citizenship our model aims at reinforcing the commitments of citizens, not anymore towards their own country but towards the whole world. It is civil society that will transform the concept of citizens of the world into ideology. 

We should not miss the chance to pioneer in this. To be more concrete, five main points constitute the civil society project in terms of the role it should play.

1. transparency and accountability
Civil society is responsible to guarantee transparency on two levels : on governmental level and within civil society itself. Its role is also to create tools for accountability. Citizens and nations have the right to know what government and civil institutions (NGOs, trade unions, associations, etc.) are achieving and how they are spending their budget. 

2. civil society networking
Not just in Europe but throughout the globe a network of civil society is essential. This will increase internal creative capacity, and European internal creative capacity and make more efficient the action plan achieved worldwide.
3. Monitoring European Institutions and make sure to put in practice the standards agreed upon.

4. Building public opinion. 
The mains tools used in this respect are the media and educational programs. 
Our civil society model must first support free flow of information, promoting internet use and activists within civil society. Second promote values of human dignity. Third lobby for the creation of a genuine, credible and free media market.
Another point is developping educational programs on European studies that tackle issues related to culture, society and tradition. 

5. The fifth role and the last role that should be faced by our civil society model is promoting democratisation and democracy where they exist.
To conclude the following quote summarizes our vision, attitude and hopes. “The important thing in life is not where we stand but rather in which direction we are moving”.
Thank you.

Communication by the European Governance group 

This subgroup focused on the institutional aspects of governance and we started out from two observations:
The first is the problem of a lack of democracy in Europe due to development essentially based on the economy to the detriment of political participation and to the feeling shared by European citizens that they have no genuine hold over their future. This viewpoint is obviously debatable but is the one from which we started. This democratic deficit is worsened by the second observation that there is no genuine European project for a Europe of citizens. In our opinion, a European project is one that must take into account the continent's specific characteristics, diversities and multicultural dimensions. However, it must above all be inspired by the principles mentioned above for civil society. It is this very absence of European project that constitutes the challenge for European civil society. Thus, on the basis of this observation, we make two proposals:

Our choice is for a Europe of territories; it could have been the Europe of sectors but we thought that we had to opt for the former. The notion of territory ranges from supranational, national, regional, municipal and communal. Problems are raised at territorial level and it is at this level that they must be solved. We feel that this is the rule to be followed and which underlies the principle of subsidiarity. However, solving problems in the places where they occur involves solidarity. Regions cannot solve their problems of poverty on their own. This raises the question of solidarity associated with the capacity to decide at the most appropriate level. This is therefore proposal 1: the Europe of territories.

Proposal 2 is the Europe of citizens, and we continue the line taken by the previous group on participatory society. We thought it would be particularly interesting to introduce throughout Europe and as quickly as possible, mechanisms for participation, influence and decision such as the right to popular initiatives and the right to hold European referendums. Here we are not speaking of national levels but of the European level in order to forge a European spirit.
To conclude, we think that the two principles, a Europe of territories and a Europe of citizens, require that Europe's institutional system be rethought. Above all, a system of universal suffrage should be set up as should a system for preparing decisions and a legislative system that takes into account territorial representation (nation, region, municipality, etc.). This should lead us to formulating a charter and even a constitution, in any case a basic document for the citizens of Europe that declares: "We, the peoples of Europe, want..."
Thank you very much.

Communication by the Europe and the rest of the world group 

We wanted to emphasize the problems, the questions or the dilemmas we face in the period of globalization with respect to the creation of an ideal European model. So our presentation will be from a citizen perspective; questions, problems, solutions and proposals are to be elaborated in today's meeting.

Our first assumption comes from a dilemma we face vis a vis creation of an ideal European model. First of all, there is a continuous process: Europe cannot be isolated from the global movement towards globalization. At the community level, we have a consolidated European idea which cannot be implemented in today’s real terms while we are all moving towards globalization.

The community vis a vis newcomers or participants tries to create, find a path of unity in diversity, unity with respect to diversity.

At this point, we face a problem or a dilemma: if there is a correspondence between the interests and values of participants, interests and values referring to prosperity, security, stability or prestige, then the cooperation works but at a particular period of time, because we do not accept these values, interests as given, we accept them as changing; if there is at a particular period of time, a clash between those interests and values, then the cooperation cannot be achieved at all levels but it leads us to a partial acceptance, that is to say in order to keep diversity and unity in the same time and in order to accept the countries especially which are difficult to absorb politically, culturally and societally, we can face a partial cooperation at the level of economics for instance.

But then we are faced with another dilemma because there is no guarantee in today’s framework that, say, Western European model which is implemented and proposed can be efficiently and appropriately used for newcomers. This question is open. In other terms, up to which extent, the newcomers adapt and implement this model, without losing their identity and without being a market but a real participant. Thus the cooperation should provide mutual advantages for both sides. For instance, if the Union proposes an economic cooperation to a newcomer without providing a say in political sphere or without providing the right to free movement of labour, the model will turn into an exploitation mechanism. The newcomer might be the market. So attractiveness of the model with respect to globalization should be based upon the emphasis to resolve historical, political, cultural, economical, societal hostilities by suggesting unity and diversity instead of structural model or a model of selected countries.

Secondly, the notion of transparency at all levels is required together with the consultancy of public opinion and the will of citizens.

As a second question, our model should emphasize a larger project European model.
European should be interpreted within the framework of globalization and this cooperation, unity in diversity, is a chance of absolute levels of tolerance and openness and brings a high level of contacts and communications towards globalization. Here in Romania we have a good example of unity and diversity, so we remain hoping for the future. Thank you very much.

Follow up to the works

Naturally, the debate on European governance led the group's participants to raise the question of the relationships that Europe should have with the rest of the world. 

The criticisms voiced at the session reserved for the Mediterranean countries concerning the Euro-Med initiatives, the considerations made by the countries from Central and Eastern Europe and more generally the discussion on the relationships between Europe and the rest of the world, stimulated a debate within the GOV group on the idea of a contract.

When involved in development activities, Europe dictates its economic and political interests as well as its Western system of democracy. This process needs changing and Europe should be required to take a contractual approach to each of its development activities.
These contracts would go beyond the present diplomatic logic or international relations based on the balance of power and subordination. The contract should be performed in a spirit of partnership in which the rights and duties of both parties are stipulated, and the advantages of each party are clearly explained. The concept of development would evolve towards a notion of co-development. 
Civil society should contribute towards the social and political aspects of these co-development contracts. Upstream, this European civil society should commit itself to educating public opinion and promoting this concept.
Europe could use this contractual approach independently in other regions of the world and deal with other types of problem in view to setting up polycentric world governance. (Why not imagine a contract between 2 regions to reduce the greenhouse effect, to avoid being held up by waiting for world consensus).

The final communication 

Winds of change
A strong civil society, a charter and contracts 
to build together a Europe open to the world.

We are at a turning point of governance in Europe. We have to evolve from a process of construction focused on the economy and retreat into national identities towards a European project that takes into account the diversity and multiculturalism that characterise our societies.

A truly motivating project for society should be based on :
- a world vision that initially incorporates the countries of the East and the South;
- participatory democracy, capable of expressing its desire for solidarity;
-… and civil society, partner of institutions for better handling of the problems facing contemporary society.

A – A world vision 

•	Globalisation spurred by competing market forces increases the imbalances between the rich and the rest, between and within regions, and requires urgent action. Many countries around the European Union are less developed and less well adapted to a global economy.

•	Enlargement is a difficult process whose criteria are obscure and which raises problems for the future members of the Union; certain neighbouring countries, particularly in the Mediterranean region, are afraid of these constraints and consider them as a form of neo-colonialism.

•	Drawing closer to one's neighbours requires infrastructures, information and communication technologies and renewed forms of mutual institutionalised recognition.

•	Strictly economic co-operation requires more flexible forms quickly that incorporate political, social, cultural and environmental dimensions. In other words, Europe must propose a system of co-operation that aims at sustainable development, cares about human rights and also about the right of peoples to decide their own destinies.

•	Institutional proposals related to flexibility should include extending "associate member" status, currently reserved only for emerging economies, to other countries of the South and the East. This extension is required to permit the movement of persons, contacts between civil societies, educational exchanges, etc. Before, or instead of, full integration, there is room to set up a number of mutually beneficial relations between the European Union and its neighbours.

•	The basic instrument of these relations of mutual interest should be the concept of "contract" which sets out reciprocal responsibilities. The authorities, actors and institutions of civil society will each play a primordial role in the promotion, management and transparent evaluation of these contracts.

•	If the European Union succeeds in developing a genuine contract with the East and the South, it will become a model for such relations between the industrialised and developing countries.

B – Participatory democracy 

Europe needs a project for the future with which each of its citizens can identify, a project that goes beyond its frontiers. European citizens currently have difficulties in participating in decisions that determine their economic, social and cultural future.

A Europe of territories should be based on the principle of subsidiarity, i.e. decisions should be taken at the level closest to the people they concern.

However, let's be clear, subsidiarity cannot exist unless it is backed up by genuine solidarity between regions and social groups, so that resources are available to give force to the decisions taken.

The main motivating initiatives are expected at local level.

A Europe of Citizens should be based on all forms of participation including direct democracy.

This is why we plead for institutions that permit both universal suffrage, the fair representation of every territory and which take into account democratic values and popular initiatives.

To achieve this, we think that civil society, whose role is increasingly essential for European construction, should promote a Charter that expresses the will of citizens to live in a society that upholds the values of peace, equality, solidarity in a Europe of territories and a Europe of citizens open to the world.

C – A strong civil society

We, the participants of this conference, citizens of the world, citizens of Europe, members of civil society, are responsible to ourselves and to the world, for formulating a vision of our common destiny.

Making this vision come true involves a revelation, one that appears more clearly when a needs exists. What we need is a project of democratic governance for Europe; Do European institutions, with their utopias and their practical dimensions, constitute an appropriate tool for making this concept into a reality? Not without civil society! The role of civil society goes beyond designing and implementing projects; it plays an essential part in creating this vision.

So, what can European civil society do to produce this vision, to guarantee that our institutions function well, and transform utopia into reality? 

We propose a project for society. But before we formulate this proposal, lets us look together at our demands.

European civil society demands the respect and complete implementation of standards. We demand transparency and responsibility. We demand democratisation and the development of democracy wherever it is missing. We demand monitoring of how our institutions function.

Our proposals are aimed at European institutions, national governments, the citizens of Europe and European civil society itself.

On the level of European institutions : 
We take on a role of critical and constructive observers of the way in which they function and we offer technical assistance to inform public opinion about the objectives, the achievements and faults of these institutions. We can start by studying the means of acceding to the EU from the point of view of civil society.

Regarding national governments:
Promote participation by citizens in public decisions, by setting up a consultation system having authority, with committed citizens. 
Identify the needs and expectations of citizens to plan the appropriate actions.
Support partnership between European countries, whether they be member states or candidates for membership, and with other countries.

At the level of citizens:
Give reliable information on issues of public order
Develop participatory structures in particular for young persons (e.g., local youth councils), and electronic forums for debates, organise public debates on European issues (between citizens throughout the continent and between citizens and European institutions).

All this will focus on a European project that is part of a global outlook. In order to implement these ideas, we suggest that European television channels diffuse information on European civil society in their programmes.

We want to be more efficient, more transparent and more capable of participating in building a responsible, plural and united world. We set ourselves the task of formulating and observing principles of good practice. We propose ISO criteria and setting up an international auditing service for NGOs. This is also a way of becoming a credible reference vis-à-vis European institutions.

Working in networks is the keystone in building a strong European civil society. A web portal for European civil society and a directory of NGOs that includes information on their objectives and activities would be a first step in this direction. 

Only if we work together can we succeed in changing the utopia of European citizenship into reality. 

CONCLUSION

The new governance of Europe requires a strong and recognised civil society, capable of proposing both institutional initiatives such as the formulation of a Charter for a Europe of Territories and Citizens and concrete initiatives for development contracts and actions that involve citizens in building their own futures.

The perspectives

The GOV participants have demanded that the dialogue established at Peles continue;  exchanges by email will certainly help this process. 
A kind of informal "Peles" network has been set in motion and the participants expressed the wish to officialise it and extend it to those interested in the approach. 
Certain exchanges took place immediately the participants returned home, despite the summer holidays.

The notion of European Constituent remains open and has already become part of the activities of many of the participants at Peles. 

During the closing plenary session, the co-ordinator of the governance topic presented two projects (cf. appendix 1: 2004 campaign; appendix 2: information cauldron) that will be the subjects of forthcoming debates between the participants of the group. 

The proposals, new ideas, projects, etc. in short the wealth of this work group is a contribution to the World Citizens Assembly at Lille, in the north of France, in December 2001.

MIG Workshop -- Final Summary: 
Migration and Cross-cultural Citizenship

In the past months, the immigration theme has been once again in the limelight of current events: the deaths of Dover and Sangatte were added to all those anonymous persons who have drowned in their attempt to cross the strait of Gibraltar. These media events have highlighted the overcautiousness, uneasiness, and difficulty of political circles in their consideration of this issue and in their proposals for efficient solutions. Founded on a “closing borders-integration-development” triptych,  national and European immigration policies have so far been limited to coercive measures reflecting only the first of these components. This whimsical determination is, however, overridden by the reality of facts: the migratory flows to Europe have never stopped increasing, resulting in a largely positive balance, as well as in a very clear surplus of inflows over outflows.

The immigration issue is not just limited to managing inflows: it focuses directly on the relationship between nationals and foreigners.
It raises questions on identity building, national integration models, and access to citizenship.

Group Methodology and Experience :

This Proposal Paper is the result of about 6 months of continued work. 
To begin with, a wide-ranging interdisciplinary debate was organised through an electronic forum. The numerous contributions structured the areas of consideration for our workshop, “Migration and Cross‑cultural Citizenship”: the three sub-topics (Codevelopment, Opening Borders, and Cross-cultural Citizenship) identified in the electronic forum served to organise three workshops in the Continental Meeting in Romania.

The cultural diversity inherent to our own collective work made the theoretical discussions in our first working session in Romania rather difficult.

Our group was actually experiencing the very question it was examining: How can harmony be obtained out of diversity?

Coping with our different cultural codes allowed us to build a group dynamics and novel ways of sharing our thoughts. 
This led us to the finding that it was not so much differences in values or standards that divided us, but rather differences in the priorities attributed to universally shared values.

The group then proceeded to in-depth considerations and progressively achieved the formulation of a set of recommendations. The whole of this material was co-ordinated by Karine Boyer, facilitator of both the electronic forum and of the work group at the Continental Meeting.
Following are the proposals drawn up by the three workshops. 

Workshop 1 : Codevelopment

The participants exhort all governments to put into practice the commitments they have made at UN World Summits (Rio Earth Summit, 1992; United Nations International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo, 1994; World Summit for Social Development, Copenhagen, 1995; Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing, 1995, etc.).

1. North-South Relations Cramped by the Economic and Financial Interests of the North

“Development” is an ambiguous concept: Until the sixties, it was reserved for the poor countries. In the rich countries, the equivalent concept was “growth.”
This concept has often masked a Eurocentrist, economicist, and evolutionist view of the history of Western societies, based on the idea of unlimited growth. With no perspective of sustainability (in the areas of environment, culture, social justice, human rights, and democracy), the myth of growth became disconnected from, or even opposed to the concept of human development.

Co-operation, a translation into acts of the “development” model imposed by the North, is overdetermined by an economic and cultural power struggle. To begin with, at the economic level, the industrialised countries, who possess the funds, control the game. The reality of the rules fixed by the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) limit the capacities of a large majority of countries of the South to set up national economic policies that are adapted to the needs of their populations. These world agencies, which have a coercive power, have moved away from their original regulating mission: Their aid policy has resulted in lasting dependence and an indebtedness for the countries they are supposed to be assisting. According to UNDP estimates, the protectionism of the rich countries has caused developing countries to lose 100 billion dollars worth of income per year on agricultural produce, and 50 billion dollars more on textiles.

Financial aid is always granted within a mercantile logic. The result is that monetary investment is not adapted to the needs of the recipient countries, but often to the interests of the donor countries. Thus, “conditioned aid” is, for instance, conditioned to the purchase of capital goods in the donor country. On the cultural level, the specificity of the cultural contexts of the recipient countries has all too often been disregarded. The cultural screens of the donor countries warp their apprehension of the reality of others and have led to the failure of the various development projects.

2. What Is Codevelopment?

A recent concept, the definition of codevelopment remains to be explored. Nevertheless, the appearance of this term is an attempt to break current practices in international relations.

By encouraging bilateral and multilateral economic co-operation, codevelopment is one of the means for increasing the wealth (monetary or not) of poor countries. It involves an “open” view of development, defined as the ability of a community to meet its basic needs. It is therefore the basis for a new understanding (reviewed concepts, means, and methods) of co-operation and aid policies.

While meeting the logic of sustainable development, its challenge is to invent another form of development, which is not a reproduction of that of West. In substance, the concept of codevelopment acknowledges that economic development is overdetermined by cultural logics and testifies to the fact that it is impossible to separate development and culture. Not limited to a transfer of knowledge and technology, codevelopment engenders a gradual interpenetration of cultures and representations of the world: Every country is free to choose and to draw up the specific form of its own development.

3. Is Codevelopment an Alternative to Migration?

The pressures that drive populations to emigrate toward other countries are increasingly strong and will probably become greater in the next decades. The main reasons for this, identified by the UNDP, are: demographic growth; improved skills among the populations of the South; inadequate work outlets in the countries of origin; and the migration of money. Industrialised countries are already hosting 14 million refugees, and this number is increasing.
Contrary to our representations on migration, South-South migration is much more substantial than South-North migration. 

Political decision makers have thought, for a long time, that migration was above all a response to the significant existing income disparities. This did not take into account that opening to trade and capital, which increases income and welfare, is concurrent with migration, especially short-term migration. The impact of codevelopment can only occur in the long term: By improving the standards of living, it turns immigration into a lesser benefit. 
Codevelopment must therefore be separated from the obsession of controlling migratory flows and turning those tides back. 
The objective of codevelopment is the individual freedom of choice regarding whether to emigrate or not.

4. Codevelopment and Governance: Intimately Linked Concepts

Thanks to its interdisciplinary, egalitarian, and territorial view of North-South / East-West relations, this innovative approach to development relies on the participation of civil and civic society. 
The local territory becomes in this case an actor in its own development. The linkage thus engendered by codevelopment, contains a new form of governance on both the European and the global scales. The object is to achieve a concerted management of humankind's common goods through a democratic approach providing transparency and requiring the stakeholders’ responsibility. 

5. Concrete Proposals

1.	For the sake of world stability, every country’s right to development must be acknowledged. The right to culture must be a prerequisite to any modernisation and development policy.
  
2.	Macroeconomic policies must be adjusted in such a way that growth is more favourable to poor people. This implies: 
 
3.	Fighting against the unequal circulation funds, goods, and people, by revising, among others, WTO rules and free-trade policies and eliminating the various protectionist obstacles set up by the industrialised countries — especially in the areas of agriculture and intellectual property — in order to guarantee fair trade and an equal redistribution of wealth. Fair trade must be promoted and generalised. 
 
4.	Strengthening the position of developing countries in global and regional trade agreements.

5.	Unconditional cancellation of debts: debt cancelling cannot become a means of pressure by the industrialised countries. In the case of debt relief, the amount of the debt must be converted into financing of development contracts aiming to implement social projects (education, health, etc.), environmental policies, and policies in favour of a social and socially responsible economy in the developing countries.
 
6.	Migrants represent wealth, as much for the host countries as for the countries of origin. Migrants’ organisations should be recognised and their actions supported, and when necessary, their establishment and involvement in “development” projects encouraged. Legal agreements should be signed with the countries of origin to formalise their role in setting up integration policies in the host countries and the countries of origin. These organisations should also be given a major role as relays in cross-cultural-exchange policies.
 
7.	The European Union must:

1.	Refuse to support the what is ordinarily called the “brain drain,” which acutely weakens the performance of the countries of origin and inevitably hinders their economic and human development.
 
2.	Become involved in concrete projects to support “developing” countries in agreement with the commitments it has made at UN summits, through the implementation of specific aid programs backing regional or subregional economic integration initiatives/projects (in Eastern Europe, the Arab countries, Africa, etc.). Aiming to encourage democratic change, in compliance with the independence and sovereignty of the partner countries, such programs have to include greater involvement of the civil society in the formulation of their objectives and the elaboration of the means to achieve them. 
 
3.	Encourage the transfer of skills, modernisation, and the reorganisation of the relations and roles of the social actors in the developing countries in the form of microprojects, which should be implemented at the geographical scale at which they are managed. 
 
4.	Back the role of civil society and the implementation of dialogue mechanisms (NGOs, representatives of the economic sectors, migrants’ organisations, etc.) as much on its territory as in that of the partner countries, in order to increase transparency and reinforce the concept of responsibility.

Workshop 2 : Opening Borders

1. State of Reflection

In the area of migration, Europe is going to be facing, in time, a twofold contradictory movement. On the one hand, the crisis in the welfare state (to which fear of terrorist attacks could be added) will be orienting the common policy of the EU Member States toward an increasingly repressive closing of borders, while on the other hand, the demographic deficit and economic recovery are generating a need for manpower, which will inevitably result in migratory flows. 

The basic principle underlying our work on the question of opening borders is that of the Universal Declaration Human Rights (UDHR), which states that “[e]veryone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.” (Article 13.2). Unfortunately, the UDHR does not say that they have the right to enter. Anyone has the right leave but where can they go if there is no right to enter.

Since 1948, when the UDHR was proclaimed, the legal situation on a world scale can be divided into two main periods:

1.	Before the seventies, in Europe, borders were open to the West, open to a lesser degree to the South, and closed to the East.
2.	After the seventies, and especially in the eighties, borders were open to the East and to the South, and closed to the West, especially for unskilled workers. 

Two concepts govern the opening of borders: freedom of movement and freedom of resettlement. Freedom of resettlement is, of course, where the problems lie, obviously placing limitations on the freedom of movement.

A reading of the last thirty years of border closing highlights the ominous side of closing borders (loss of fluidity in population and manpower movements, generalised suspicion of foreigners and foreign nationals, ethnicisation of social issues, circulation of racism and xenophobia, development of clandestinity and corruption, etc.). 
The principles of responsibility and of precaution do not mean Europe should retreat into its fortress: This attitude merely aggravates the effects of closing borders on the current development gaps and on the migration pressure.

When this happens, migration movements appear very clearly as the object of a tension between the logic of the market, the logic of the state, and Human Rights.

The main direction of our considerations, which forced us to do some forecasting, was to seek answers to the question: Can these restrictive regulations, which have a political, financial, and human cost, be avoided? 

After long, passionate, and heated discussions on the topic of opening of borders, the group found that dealing with this question requires, above all, an opening of minds.

The participants found a consensus around two key principles: 
1.	A plan to totally open borders does not seem to be feasible for the moment.
2.	Only cases of request for political asylum and family grouping require an immediate and unconditional opening of the borders.

2. Proposed Measures:

a)	In the country of origin

1.	Determine the true reasons of emigration from the country of origin, at every level (economic, political, social, religious, demographic, ecological) in order to act upon them.
2.	Stimulate codevelopment in view of making it an alternative to immigration in the long term. 
3.	Guide and inform potential migrants on: 
-	the dangers they may encounter in the country of their destination: drug trafficking, manpower trafficking, prostitution, language barriers, cultural shock, etc.;
-	the legislation of the country of their destination: rights and duties (in terms of the conventions of the International Labour Organisation and domestic law).

b)	In the host country

1.	Promote the application of international labour conventions, particularly those of the ILO (International Labour Organisation) ratified by the host country and fight violation of these conventions.
2.	Harmonise European political-asylum policies in compliance with HCR rules, and the Geneva Convention on Human Rights 
3.	Harmonise European legislation in matters of:
-	immigration,  by aligning them on those most favourable to the interests of immigrants;
-	nationality, by giving greater importance to the right of soil, by facilitating naturalisation procedures;
-	citizenship, by respecting and recognising the right to multi-citizenship
4.	Review and modify the Rome Convention in aspects concerning the rights to multi-citizenship, review and modify the Maastricht Treaty by giving the right to every Member State through an enlargement of EU citizenship to all residents. 
5.	Decide on own nationality code.
6.	A host country requesting unskilled labour must provide specific conditions and reception policies: wages, accommodation, and other social rights for the migrants.
7.	Regularisation of all persons in illegal situations in order to protect their rights as persons and to dignity. 
8.	In all cases of illegal employment, sanctions should be applied to the employers and the agents violating the work legislation of the host country, in order to reinforce legalised recruitment of foreign manpower.
9.	The ministry in charge of migration affairs must be the Ministry of Social Affairs, none other (such as the Ministry of Justice or of the Interior).
10.	Visas are not an excuse to develop a security policy. It is necessary:
-	to make it easier to obtain long-term visas (working visas, temporary residence permits - 3 to 5 years); 
-	to eliminate short-term visas, which are not suitable for fighting against terrorism.
11.	Funds used for the eviction of immigrants and the reinforcement of borders should be redirected to support development processes in the countries of origin and to improve the social, legal, and economic infrastructures in both countries (country of origin and host country).
12.	Promotion and information on the working opportunities in the international media, on the Internet, and in employment agencies in the countries of origin.
13.	Information and educational campaigns to prepare the country of destination to accept the new immigrants and to fight against xenophobia and racism.
14.	Protect cultural minorities by recognising their specificities (economic, social, and cultural) and in particular those of the Romany people, a Nation with neither a State nor a territory. 

Workshop 3 : Cross-cultural Citizenship

1. State of Reflection

The European nations with unity-oriented political traditions are concerned about the development of ethnic identities, the existence of minorities, the elaboration of a multicultural society, and the capacity to assimilate newcomers, especially Muslim newcomers. The nation, even though it has grown weaker, remains a regulation body and a privileged place of identification. The meeting of cultures is therefore often experienced as a threat that weighs on own traditions and values, which can generate xenophobia. 

Our workshop in Romania attempted to reflect on the means that need to be set up so that for the nationals, new immigrants, and the previously resettled populations living together means better living. Three questions guided our work: 

What type of society do we wish to build together?
What are the problems raised in the relations among individuals of different cultures?
How can a culture of dialogue be encouraged within the societies?

Our considerations were built around the knowledge and the experiences of the participants at their local levels. To avoid the pitfall of national ideologies and/or of the semantics of the terms, we first had to define the concepts used collectively and also to give thought to a set of ethical fundamentals. 

1.1 Definition of the Concepts Used: 

Our use of the word “culture” during our work needs to be understood both as a product and a process. 
Culture refers simultaneously to conscious processes, such as historic memory, language, customs, observable behaviour, and ways of being, but also to unconscious processes, such as ways of thinking, perception, and the view of the world. It is a particular way of defining reality, perceiving it, and understanding it, which is buried within each of us and associated with a very strong emotional component. 

It is of course illusory to believe that nations are homogeneous: culture is at a crossroads with other signifying elements, such as gender, social background, age, profession, and religious and ideological beliefs.

Multicultural and Cross-cultural: 

As a result of the growth and mobility of persons, multiculturality has become the major reality of most societies.
The term “multicultural” has two meanings. The first, a matter of “intra-individual” dimension, emphasises an individual's plural cultural identity. The other, by placing the accent on the cross‑individual aspect, underscores the co-existence of persons of several different cultures without mentioning a dialogue or an adjustment among them. 
Multiculturalism can be used to express the idea that the ethnic-based affirmation of individuals is not hindered.

In reality, however, this concept could encourage the affirmation and exaggeration of the cultural differences among groups while concealing the individual's ethnic plurality. Opening the way to the ethnic-community assertion and its excesses (monolithic ethnic-based demands, withdrawal from others, indifference to others, etc.), this model would lead to the ethnicisation of social issues, which would eventually put social cohesion in danger. 
Therefore, the term “multiculturalism” does not say anything specific on the relations among the cultures. 

On the other hand, the concept “cross-cultural” places the accent on the effective interaction among different cultures and on the influence that they exercise on one another.
It contains the idea of cross-creation: each loses something and each wins something. It is a dynamic, slow process, which requires open-mindedness, a questioning of one’s own “truths,” and an awareness of one’s own cultural “software.” 

Discussion of these concepts resulted in modifying the title of the general topic. Given the objectives that were aimed at, the title “Cross-cultural Citizenship” was judged, during our discussions in the electronic forum and at our meeting in Romania, to be more suitable than “Multicultural Citizenship.”

1.2 Ethical Fundamentals of Our Reflection: 

Human Rights, the horizon toward which every culture must tend, must be recognised as a reference mark to be aspired to. A satisfactory and durable “living together” for all requires seeking a balance between cultural diversity and cultural universalism.

The state must be the guarantor of equality in law among all citizens, whatever their cultural belonging, which implies fighting all forms of discrimination.

For there to be respect of cultural identities and the affirmation of the right to difference for all the components within every national community, this determination must be reflected in an overall policy of economic fairness and social justice.

The host countries need to recognise the plural cultural identity of the individuals who are immigrants, first- or second-generation: a monolithic and frozen identity is equivalent to both a loss of freedom for the individual and a source of symbolic violence. In any case, it is an obstacle to people’s meeting each other. 

Respect of others cannot be imposed by laws. It is manifested in people’s exercising their cultural freedom. Beyond the simple attitude of tolerance, it involves a positive attitude to others and their differences, and to the originality of their life styles perceived as a wealth and a value.

Recognition of diversity supposes individuals to work on themselves, reversing perspectives, and an evolution of mentalities.

2. Series of Concrete Proposals 

Discussion on the means for obtaining operational cross-cultural citizenship in a multicultural environment are set out below according to the different sectors of activities. Obviously, these series of proposals, supported by the fruit of the participants’ experiences, need to be adapted to national specificities.

a)	In the area of citizenship: 

The concept of citizenship indicates the link that an individual maintains with the political sphere.

Findings: 

The States of the European Union (EU), which claim to have founded their institutions on freedom, equality, dignity, and the respect of Human Rights, generate political discrimination within their populations depending on the nationality. By creating EU citizenship on a basis of reciprocity and not of opening, the Maastricht Treaty divides the inhabitants of a single country into 3 castes: nationals (who have all political rights and in particular the right to vote and stand as a candidate in all elections), EU citizens, who have the right to vote in municipal and European elections, the right of movement within the European borders, the right to diplomatic protection in a country where their state is not represented, the right of petition), and citizens of non-member countries (who only have the right of petition and, depending on the country where they live, the right to vote in municipal elections (Denmark, Ireland, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden) or not (Germany, Austria, Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal); not counting undocumented immigrants, who have no rights.

This reality is in contradiction with the values proclaimed by the official texts such as: 

-	the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 1 and 2). 
-	the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 21.2).
-	the Tampere Declaration, which says that nationals of non-member states must obtain a set of uniform rights as close as possible to those enjoyed by the citizens of the EU.

EU nationals residing in another country of the EU, of which they do not have the nationality, have EU citizenship and the right to vote in municipal and European elections as soon as they settle, under the same conditions as nationals. Whereas nationals of non-members states, who have sometimes resided in an EU country for a long time, do not have this right. 

Granting the same rights, including political ones, to all residents, whatever their nationality, would be a considerable step toward a truly universal suffrage and a greater respect of the equality principle. 

Guiding principles: 

Citizenship of residence does not solve everything: it does not even cover all of citizenship.

The demand for a European citizenship of residence goes well beyond the right to vote. From regularisation of undocumented immigrants to union or political rights, residence is the foundation of increasingly more rights. Making it possible to grant the same rights to all foreign residents on a single territory would facilitate their integration. 

It would be one more step toward participatory citizenship: each person would be able to fully weigh to obtain satisfaction on points that political representatives can disregard as long as they only concern non voters.

Proposals: 

To improve the exercise of citizenship and therefore cohabitation among the different communities, it is important to:

-	encourage access to citizenship for foreign residents, in particular by granting them the right to vote on a municipal and European scale;

-	inform residents on the laws and other rules governing societal functioning, emphasising the rights and duties, by publishing them in different languages and posting this information in all public places;

-	open anti-discrimination offices (information, toll-free numbers, setting up a framework of legal procedures, etc.);
 
-	open all public and private institutions of the host country to representatives of the different cultural communities to encourage their participation and the defence of their interests;
 
-	open forums of discussions among the different cultural communities, between them and the nationals, to improve solidarity and mutual understanding; clarify the norms and values of the cultures present in a given country; in case of tensions likely to result in a conflict, communication among groups will aim to distinguish misunderstandings from actual disagreements — in this latter case, positions must be brought closer in both directions - one toward the other - to then be the starting point of a change, consciously acknowledged by the two parties.

b)	In the area of government services: 

* Education

The objective is to make school a true place of living, in which individuals from different cultural groups can experience meeting others, which is the basis of all cross-cultural learning. To be in a school where several cultures coexist must be experienced as a wealth of opening onto the world.

To do so, the accent must be placed on: 

- the mobilisation and participation of the schoolchildren’s parents in the decision processes. Their representation must be the reflection of the school’s cultural mosaic;

- hiring cross-cultural mediators within the school, who would contribute to: 

-  training professionals in cultural relativism; this training must help them think in terms of plurality while offering them the possibility to become aware of their own cultural software and to go beyond, in deed, their own prejudices and stereotypes; this exercise consists in recapturing, through perceptions, representations, and appreciation, the fact that one has one’s own particular view of others;

-  the harmonisation of the links between the immigrant families and the teachers’ body;

-  allowing every school sufficient autonomy so that it can respond to the needs of every district’s cultural communities and specific problems;

-  promoting mixed schools as an alternative to ghettoisation; 

-  promoting plurality in the curricula of denominational schools;

-  including the teaching of the immigrant's language in the school’s curriculum, or offering the possibility of taking extra-curricular language courses;

- renewing the ethnocentric or Eurocentric conception of the education system, which justifies the understanding of human relationships in terms of dominant/dominated; 

- rewriting some school manuals in partnership with professionals from other countries (history, language, and literature);

-  teaching the different religious beliefs throughout the world in order to encourage dialogue and the acceptance of differences.

* Social action 

-	Direct social action toward a process of co-operation and not of assistedness: it is important to work with not for the public. 

-	Apply the principle of empowerment: It is necessary to allow a relative autonomy to cultural communities so that they can adapt to the host country, and live and reinforce their cultural identity.

-	Stimulate the financial autonomy of immigrant individuals or communities by avoiding to generate dependence on social-action policies.

* Health system

-	Sensitise and train nurses and doctors to the cultural plurality of their patients.
-	Practice holistic care systems: the separation of the body and the mind such as it is experienced in the Western world is inconceivable in other cultures. It can even be seen as a pathogenic factor.

* Housing  

-	Stop the creation of ghettos and impose a sociocultural mix on the whole territory through legal constraints.

-	Set up of solidarity mechanisms so that suitable accommodation is secured for all those who are in a precarious situation.

* Sociocultural action 

-	Train street mediators or facilitators in the multicultural districts.

-	Organise, in these centres, activities that set as their goal a better cross-cultural understanding, such as: movies and plays from the different cultures and discussions on their subjects; courses on cultures from other countries (Oriental cooking, African dance, flamenco, etc.); organisation of festivals on cultures of the world to stimulate creative work by immigrants (theatre, arts, letters, etc.).

* National security

The government security bodies (police, army, etc.) must not be considered solely in their repressive dimension but also in their preventive one. Raising awareness within them to plurality, cross-cultural dynamics, and respect of human rights is a fundamental stake for our democracies. For these professional categories to be the image of a multicultural society, the recruitment of individuals from cultural minorities is important.

* Arts policy

All places devoted to the arts must be considered as privileged places for education of the people.

In the museums: 
- Promote the works of artists expressing alternative visions to the dominant cultural model and make sure that they have places where they can speak of their art. They should be considered as conveyors between civilisations.
- Make sure that the knowledge proposed in such places is not the simple transmission of an ethnocentric vision, but a plural vision of the world.
- Make sure culture is not presented as monolithic and static, but as dynamic. 

In the libraries: 
- Make libraries a place of meetings, discussion, and exhibitions that are rich in cultural diversity.
- Translate books from foreign languages, whose authors preferably belong to the cultural communities living in the country.

c) In the press and in the area of new information technology:

- sensitise journalists and the present media to plurality and make them aware of their own prejudices;
- show and denounce the prejudices that underlie the discriminatory ways in which the press gives reports;
- encourage the emergence of plurality in television through: 
* the participation of immigrants in the media trades and making it possible for immigrants to produce their own programs (television, radio) 
* opening of “mainstream” media to programs of other cultural communities: programs for the general public on the culture and history of the cultural communities living in the country, using the “regards croisés” (crossing of views) technique
* the emergence of alternative media for the cultural communities
- encourage the access to new information technology for the creation of alternative networks of public opinion and solidarity. 

Final restitution of the WORK workshop: 
Work and social organisation

Dignity and social recognition: work, education and a universal basic income

This text is the written version of Hugues Puel's speech at the plenary session of the European Continental Assembly of the Peles meeting in Romania (17-21 June 2001). The author was appointed by the WORK group to present this proposal within a deadline that has not permitted collecting feedback from the group for evaluation.

Our group had methodological problems that prevented it from exploiting the wealth of experience of its individual members to the full; likewise with the wealth of the work done in sub-groups. For example, the three following points were not developed as they should have been:

1- The question of the consumer's responsibility with respect to both food, which would have provided a link with the rural world group, and the saver-shareholder and thus corporate governance, which would have provided a link with the governance group. 

2- Company ethics was the subject of a very interesting contribution from a company boss on the ethical certification criteria chosen in the framework of each company and applicable to socialisation. If we had examined this point in more depth, we could have progressed quite far on the finalities of the company in an economic world with myriad economic activities in terms of type, size and relationship with their territory.

3- Regarding the social economy, a large number of experiences expressed by the members of our group could have led to more in-depth analysis, e.g., the co-operatives of Mondragon in the Basque Country, school workshops in the Paris region, social integration companies, intermediate organisations, and district associations in different parts of France, etc.

Furthermore, the work of clarifying concepts required time. This could have been done in the electronic forum. However, it did not function well for the WORK workshop. 

The distinction between activity, work and employment appeared important and pertinent for treating work related problems: 

- Activity is the expression of human beings living from their activities of transformation, but also with its internal aspects of meditation, reflection and aspiration to beauty and adoration. 

- Regarding work, it is the general activity of transformation of the relationships between human beings and nature and between human beings with each other. 

-  Employment is the specific form that work takes in our societies organised around employment systems with complex rules. These distinctions appeared important. They permit distinguishing, for example, between job flexibility, which increases insecurity and dependence, and work flexibility which can be positive insofar as it enriches tasks and improves competencies. 

The concept of activity was withdrawn from the title of our contribution. Although it describes the general meaning mentioned above, in certain languages at least, it has an economic meaning, and an intimate acceptance that many of us reject, i.e. participation in commercial production measured by the standards of national statistics.

We felt that discussion on concepts could allow us to discuss subjects in greater depth.

The results of our work are written down in the contributions of the three sub-groups, and only a very brief summary of these is given here. These contributions will be adjoined to the final text. 

1- The ambiguities of work of the concept of work in modern society.

The subgroup tried to emphasise the wealth of the concept of work as the construction of identities and as a process of social recognition. Thus a change of perception is needed so that recognition is given to work that is not remunerated but essential to community life, thereby contributing to a more transparent society. 

Some persons rejected the idea that work is a basic necessity, but that he or she who does not work should be able to eat nonetheless.

The subject of dignity was often mentioned: dignity by making visible hidden work, by the recognition of certain forms of employment and respect for work in which words are commitments, and also where the wealth generated permits giving to others. 

The ambiguities of science and technology were emphasised: the damage of progress and the loss of control on the one hand, and the improvement of certain conditions on the other. 

This subgroup made certain concrete proposals to improve the distribution of work and mobility in society.

2- Basic income: for and against

The group was divided on this issue and a subgroup attempted to clarify the two positions and express them. 

Basic Income is an income paid by the state to all citizens from the moment they live legally on its territory. Basic income is an entitlement of the citizen, a universal right, a debt owed by society and an unconditional right.

This income replaces a whole range of social aid in a more dignified and efficient way. Those who earn additional money must pay taxes, thus financing the basic income.

Doubtless, this reform cannot be applied immediately everywhere in the world, but it should be through time. Everything depends on the wealth of nations and the financial level of the income decided.

The adversaries of the basic income doubt its ethical value since it treats individuals as creditors vis-à-vis society, contrary to the traditional situation in which everyone is a debtor. This transformation is so radical that it deserves debate and reflection.

Furthermore, the economic and social consequences of this measure are unclear. Wouldn't it destroy the combat against poverty by emptying budgets devoted to it to the benefit of the basic income? Wouldn't it exacerbate inequalities?

Although this system requires further study and discussion, action is also needed to improve the system of employment, which is not suffering from a crisis as severe as some catastrophic analyses would have us believe regarding the reduction of the total number of jobs, the reduction of social aid to the level of charity and the failure of social policies.
The employment system can be improved in many ways. For example, the French Minimum Integration Income has made the administration more sensitive to different aspects of poverty. Since it is a universal income, it is unconditional. The beneficiary is entitled to it from the moment his or her income falls below a given threshold. However, there are strings attached to this unconditional dimension, since it maintains some links with the rest of society, whereas the basic income risks being a payment that, once made, cuts off the beneficiary from any links.

The subgroup made a large number of suggestions in the case where the employment system comes into contact with families and their needs: basic education and lifetime education, voluntary work and the mobilisation of the unemployed and pensioners, social policy and the multiple initiatives made in the social economy. 

3- Ethics for training and education 

The subgroup formulated philosophical and pedagogical principles. Here we mention only the assertion of the right to education in which priority is given to personal development. This conforms to the emphasis given by the group to the importance of personal dignity. Pedagogical principles were identified which value willingness to listen, awareness and curiosity, and respect between teachers and pupils and trainees. The relationship between teachers and society was of particular concern to the subgroup. One of the chief objectives of this view of education was the development of critical analysis in each person so that they become responsible citizens.

The subgroup explored (unequally) three areas of application for these principles: school education, lifetime education, and the learning society.

Certain subjects were recurrent: learning to learn, opening out to society, apprenticeship and alternation of production activities with teaching.

In all, this reflection was difficult and incomplete, though rich with perspectives for a European civil society.

Hugues Puel
26 June 2001

Ethic for Training and Education

The training subgroup of the Work group was made up of 11 persons from European countries both inside and outside the European Union, North Africa and the Middle East.  This subgroup attempted to identify the "philosophical" and "pedagogical" principles of education in relation with the subjects of the "Work" group. The subgroup was aware of the imprecision of the terms "philosophical" and "pedagogical" chosen in order to save time. In fact the content of the reflections was not far removed from the real meaning of these terms.

Following a lively and rich debate between the group's members, we decide to conclude by listing a series of proposals that corresponded to the philosophical aspects analysed and the concepts of the pedagogical aspects dealt with. 

Proposals on philosophical aspects 

Aware of the ambiguity of the word "work'" and the degradation of the expression "the right to work", the subgroup proposed that:
"All citizens have the right to education. Society has the obligation of providing citizens with the resources and circumstances permitting them to benefit from this right".

Knowledge transmitted can be misleading or partial, thereby resulting in the contrary of what is sought. The group also proposes that:
"Society has the right to objective and plural forms of knowledge and must give itself the means of controlling it".

The evolution of education must be linked with that desired for society. This means that dispensing education should no longer be limited to within the walls of premises. The subgroup proposes that:
"The whole of society and its environment should become the place where education is dispensed."

In a society where different interests and stakes exist and merge, the subgroup proposes that:
"Personal development should be the priority of all education.”

The task of teaching is complex and the teacher fails to find constructive complicity in his or her environment. However, society should not delegate the organisation and application of standards related to the provision of education to teachers. This must be done by both society and teachers, which must control education as mentioned above. To do this, the subgroup proposes that:
"Society must act with teachers to carry out, without complete delegation to the latter, the mission of education".
One person remarked that the proposal should include the expression, "society should put pressure on teachers". 

In order to assure the quality of education, the subgroup proposes that:
 "Society should give itself the means, without delegation, of guaranteeing the spirit of critical analysis and openness of education".

After reflection on the pedagogical principles to be applied to education, the subgroup expressed five initial functional concepts: 

In order to respect the philosophical principles listed above, society and, within society:
 "Teachers should encourage the spirit of discovery that leads to the freedom to learn".

Stemming from the previous point:
"Teachers should encourage and defend:
- the spirit of listening 
- the spirit of awareness 
- the spirit of curiosity 
- respect between teachers and people being taught and, by consequence, between teachers and the society to which they belong."

A few examples of applications were mentioned in response to the philosophical and pedagogical principles.

The subgroup proposes that:
 "Less attention should be given to teaching concrete concepts and more attention should be given to teaching to learn. This guarantees the spirit of discovery".

The subgroup proposes that:
 "Education opens out to the exterior. In this perspective, learning languages corresponds to the criteria of knowledge and understanding between cultures, thus of different identities".

 Concerned with freeing the individual and ensuring that he/she is endowed with a globally critical mind, the subgroup proposes that:
 "The teaching of the humanities should be encouraged, especially in the teaching of technical subjects".

It is advisable to individualise the occasions for communicating a subject. In this perspective, the subgroup proposes that:
 "Learning should be enhanced and given more importance"

Traditional learning, which used to take place in a more convivial society, should restore dignity to the individual who receives no recognition for his/her work. 

********************

One of the members of the group proposed that a training allowance of 12 years, if necessary, and discontinuously, be guaranteed to each citizen. Mention was made of the consequences of interrupting educating when young, which can lead to destabilisation.

The ambiguities of work in the modern societyThe ambiguities of work in the modern societyThe ambiguities of work in the modern societyThe ambiguities of work in the modern society

As a practical active working animal man goes from life to death gaining knowledge; shaping the society formulating several forms of recognition and procedures for social exclusions. Through work we transform our inner and outer nature. We develop technologies and new skills in a dynamic process. The society imposes also norms upon the individual. Our concrete historical nature is double: We are shaped, but also shaping, and we have several choices to make within limits, often trying to expand life crossing the existing boarder lines.

The concept of work is much broader and richer than the concept of wage labour. The concept of work must be given new life, given new and vivid dimensions, pointing towards a new dignified existence for mankind. Work and “selfgovernance” must be tied close to each other. Work must be connected to and be given the old meaning it had in the enlightenment period and in the days when there was a critical and progressive labour movement in society. The concept of work needs new interpretations every day. Work must secure the individual existence and we could try to take some of the negative connotations away from the new concept. Different uses of the concepts « work », « labour », « wage labour », « activity », « travail », « Arbeit » etc. in different languages need to be debated and interpreted in the civil societies and in the international public sphere of mutual communication.

The concept of economy should not only concern the instrumental processes of producing profit and to let the enterprises grow, but should be a mean of qualifying the society and creating a world to live in for all citizens of the world. The fruits of the wage-labour ought to be for everybody, and the work must be emancipated and expanded. 

Even though work is one of most important the means to get something to eat and a place to stay (supporting reproduction of man), work now seems to be a primary need of man and a central sphere for processes of recognition and identity building. Work is a duty imposed upon the individual for instrumental reasons, but work is also a way in which the individual gets a social face and tries to express him- or her self in a free and imaginative way, if it is possible. 

But we must not forget, that work is not just a need of man but also something that has to be reduced in time (i.e. the wage labour and the necessary time used for pure survival and existence purposes); providing the individual and the society with potential free time. An important notion and principle is, that a non-working man also have the right to get something to eat and a home. The good life is not only connected, neither has it only it’s outcome or expression in the working field. But it must not be forgotten, that existential security is important for man and utmost dependant on the way society produces its goods as fruits of collective work.

It took a long time to discipline man to "love" wage labour and fixated working hours. Historical and etymological the word work is closely connected to the word slavery. In old Ancient Greece only the slaves were forced to work, while the rich and free men were active in their lives, doing politics, writing philosophy and enjoying life and the work result of others. These inequalities are not to be idealised.

Today it's hard not to see and experience, that recognition binds society together. Without recognition the individual dies or becomes invisible. In modern societies the most important form of recognition seems to be the work. Our identity and ways of expressing self esteem are strictly connected to work and tied to the way society recognizes work. You ask someone: "What are you doing?". And normally you won't get the answers: "Playing soccer", "Loving to make love", "Dreaming of a water melon", but instead: "I'm a carpenter", "I'm a teacher", "I'm not working" etc.

* Many problems arise in this context:

		the reduction of the individual worker to a commodity used and consumed in time
		the reduction of the content and the value of work to the instrumental and exploitive needs of others
		the reduction of living human subjects to exchangeable objects
		the reduction of art, education and ethics to time-restricted, instrumental and measured utility phenomenons
		the exclusion of other forms of recognition and societal processes independent of wage-labour
		the priority of the product over the process
		the inequalities and new forms of destructive divisions of wage labour within and between the nations
		the transformation of potential free time into empty  leisure time  and/or  into new forms of exploitation

A dilemma in high-tech modernity is that we tend to be caught in a process in which the work no longer has an upper limit (the computer, the e-mail and the Internet make it possible to work 24 hours every day), and in a process in which we express our selves and our feeling of freedom. The ability and ambitions to play with and to fulfil all our talents at work often conflicts with other spheres of our existence (the needs of the family, the societal obligations, the right to say STOP etc.). 

We have to work and we love to work at the same time. Work is more than a duty. Work is also "hard fun" in many elaborated and high-skilled professions. Often the most privileges people chose to work and not to be together with the family. The computer does not demand attention, devotion or love – and it does not smell or protest. In the rich Western world many people think that work is a hobby and staying at home is a prison and an obligation.

Flexible work expands the working hours and new disciplinary forms arise as well as new forms of freedom and progressive advantages for the individual self-autonomy.

Work and dignity are intimate related and connected to each other. Dignity has two faces in work processes. From within the individual experience expresses his or her dignity, when it is being exposured in the eyes of the other fellow human beings, and at the same time does the society give you recognition, so you feel the dignity. Dignity is an inside-out and an outside-in concept, and it must be secured and developed at all levels. Either you're wage labouring or not you can gain and produce social knowledge and the possibility to live an active life must be seen as a worldwide right.
  
Working people at all levels (from the unskilled to the professor) must fight for the opportunity to experience the proudness and the dignity of the work, when the uncontrollable events open their world for new, never ending experiments of life. The will to self-realization and the ability to improvise and to be able to express yourself without fear in all situations must be a goal to achieve for the self reflexive modern (wo)man.

Everybody must have the right and the possibility to ask some fundamental questions about the meaning in the concrete work and the actual wage-labour. Why am I working? What is the purpose? 

The right to be lazy must also be protected, and the right not to accept destructive and not interesting work. It ought to be possible for the individual to stand up for this right to be aware and critical. In "luxury" Western societies of today we see that it's hard to attract young people to do the jobs which are not attractive. If an individual has the possibility and the strength to choose (s)he will only do wage labour, if it brings something to live. But many workers around the world are forced to "forget" this simple fact. 

* To create recognition of the individual in all aspects of social life demands that we inherit and transform:

		the concepts of work, wage labour and activity
		the invisible work forms (women's work in the families; helping and benevolent actions in the civil society, solidarity work at all levels; and liberating the wage less work. New ways of showing respect and give valuation must be developed 
		the ways of thinking the society and it's bonds, providing approaches for the individuals to be open towards processes of becoming. Human identities are and must never be fixated, and cultures are and must never be closed, blind and self-loving entities
		the spheres of human life when we are not working (i.e. making love, dancing, playing music etc.)

There will always be conflicts of how to define and “substantialize” the concepts of work and how to decide how much time and life energy the individual and the society should spend on this basic anthropological dimension. The "vita activa" will always be a vivid and concrete element in the explorative and adventurous "vita speculativa". 

The asymmetrical dimensions of work (different power positions, educational levels, ages, sexes, ambitions etc.) must be transformed into processes containing much more reciprocity. I.e. if you're working in the social and educational spheres of society your goals will have to be to see the other person blossom and to set the other human being free to express his or her talents in a dynamic and progressive way. Some examples might be exposed: Poor people, patients in hospitals and institutions, children, pupils and students must be trained and given the opportunities to be critical and autonomous - even though it might irritate the clinical doctors, the teachers in grammar schools and the university professors.   

We are destined to be in a process of becoming. No fixated solutions can save us, and no restricted proposals can handle all the problems and remove all the ambiguities from the modern society at one time or with the help of one magic(al) strike.

Some concrete proposals :

1. Due to the flexible organization of the wage labour processes it must be possible to have the possibility to work at home, even though we have to take into consideration that the lack of colleagues and the lacking possibility to get away from home might be a problem the society and the individual will have to tackle. Considering flexibility there are many severe differences between the West and the East and between the North and the South. But historical experience can tell that what we see in the privileged Western society of today soon can be tomorrow's reality for the whole world. Therefore it's very important to try to gain the advantages of the rise in flexibility at all levels in the society for the employees. Flexibility shouldn't just be imposed on the workers and the society as a weapon in the hands of the strategic capitalist management.

2. The transformation of the invisible people into visible people must be supported; Women who used to be in the darkness shall have the chance to blossom in the midst of all. The self esteem and dignity elements must be stressed. The society and the individual have many former unknown and strong potentials. We must not forget the unemployed, the people not being able to work, the old people, the retired people and the disabled. They all deserve recognition and all of them must have the chance to give something to the society and to share its benefits

3. We must teach the kids to learn and examine the dilemmas of work and wage-labour life and not to forget: to be able to cope with them. Self-criticism and open mindedness must be human goals to achieve

4. We must support work processes in which the individual gains knowledge (i.e. education; mutual understanding and exchange, foreign politics etc.): The product and the instrumental rationality should not be the sole centre of society

5. We must demand that a highly skilled worker shouldn't accept to be going to be work for an injustice state or a company "consuming" and swallowing the working people. The highly skilled ought not to take the work from the less skilled. 
     
6. Even though the right to mobility and to cross all boarders, in principle, must be protected in an open society for all world citizens, a problem is that the well educated leave the less developed countries and travel to the more developed countries to work there. In this way the don’t use their qualifications in their homeland. The reverse side of medal - the freedom to travel to earn money & the "brain drain" and other structural problems must be closely examined.

The work and the family

We are human beings. We are Homo Sapiens (not Homo Erectus ???)
Because of that we can shoes do we need to work, what to do and how to do it.
Nowadays, a large number of people can choose to work, or to have a family.
As it has been mentioned work is one of the most important aspects of human life (existence). But, also, a human being cannot live without a family as well. Why do we need a good job and money, if we do not have the opportunity to invest it? Many of us invest their money into family, which means, that a family, procreation, is just another reason for our existence on the Earth.
However, we can loose one goal to achieve the other. In this way, we neglect family because of our work. Young people prefer not having a family. 
On the other hand, it is not rue, that the youth are interested exclusively in their careers. We have to create an opportunity for them to fulfil themselves in different fields, so that they could be able to have family and children, continue their education and go to work. 
However, if we can choose how to work, maybe we could work at home, using computers, the Net, spending time with the family. 
The thesis is the opportunity to work at home.
Of course, you may say - such work can prolong ate up to 20 hours a day.
Doesn’t a human being have a right to choose, if we help him to create such an alternative. In this way we can solve several problems:
-	unemployment prevention;
-	creation of new places of work;
-	own business start up programs.
Employers should take into consideration the employee’s wishes.

Basic Income

In this working group we had a very fruitful, interesting but controversial debate about the question if work, or, to be more exact, labour, that means the standardized and remunerated form of activity will be or should be the ongoing mechanism of social organization in our societies. The two antagonistic points of view were presented by Daniel Raventós, Prof. of the University of Barcelona and member of the European network on basic income and Hugues Puel, member of “Économie and humanisme”, Lyon France. 
There arguments are the following:

A. Proposal for a Basic Income

I. 
The Basic Income is an income paid by the government (or state, if one prefers) to each member of full right (or permanent resident) even 1) if he/she doesn’t want to work in an remunerated way, 2) without taking in consideration if he/she is rich or poor, or said in another way, independently of their other possible rent sources, and 3) without caring with whom he/she cohabits.

That is to say Basic Income is not comparable with conventional measures of social aid, unemployment benefit, etc. . All these type of aids are related to special social conditions, like unemployment, poverty, handicapped persons etc. The Basic Income is not, it’s unconditional. 

II.
The debate on BI started about 18 years ago as an academic debate but actually has already passed these borders. Today this debate is going on among trade unions, social associations, politicians etc. but with different intensity in different continents and countries.

The substratum of the BI can be summarized in two steps: 
First step: The most powerful national economies generate a lot of wealth and those not so opulent engender less, but both are causing at the same time abundance of poverty. This is not the consequence of any natural law to which it would not be reasonable to oppose (as it would be, for example,  to deny the evidence of the law of gravity). The existing poverty in our societies is consequence of a social option. As, for example, to manufacture weapons, to raise the interest-rates or to assign a part of the state budget for a royal family. And even in the wealthy nations poverty is a much more important problem than less informed people would be willing to admit at first sight. 
Second step: Neither the indirect traditional measures (economic growth, flexibilisation of the labour market, reduction of working hours etc.), nor the direct ones against the poverty (characteristic traditional subsidies of the welfare state) are able to solve the problem in the current dimensions. 

III.
An implicit idea of the BI is that work is a broader conception than the one of a remunerated activity. It is parting from the idea of three different types of work (although their might be different understandings among different authors): remunerated work, domestic work and voluntary work. 

IV.
Some of the advantages of BI are the following:

The BI does not have the problems of the traditional subsidies related with the poverty trap.

It would give a more powerful position to the more feeble members of our societies (it would allow them not to have to accept any kind of labour in any kind of condition, like today).

It would offer to an important part of the society the real freedom to choose.

It would enable especially women who dependant on their husbands (often at the same time their aggressors) to be more independent.

It would avoid the humiliating administrative controls of the traditional conditioned subsidies. That means it would avoid the stigmatization related with those.

V.
BI will surely not avoid all types of problems but to assure to everybody the right of existence would permit at the same time the realization of some of the big issues we debated during these days like empowerment of the civil society, a more democratic and direct participation of the citizens in decision making processes, separate the social recognition and personal identity from labour and others

VI.
The idea of the BI might sound utopian today like it was yesterday the idea of general elections independent from social status, income, gender, education etc. Today nobody would understand freedom and democracy without this universal right to vote. Probably in the future freedom and democracy will not be understood without this social and economic right and guarantee of existence for all the members of society for the simple reason of being one.

B. Improve our employment systems

The proposal of BI is radical, since it introduces a new political right: a recognised minimum income as a basic right of all citizens. It is a debt that society must pay to each and everyone. The amount of this debt depends on the wealth of the country and the level of the income decided. However, it would cause an upheaval in the budgets of political authorities, the tax system, social policies and the structure of salaries and remunerations. 

This proposal supposes a major political decision that would not be made without debate, not only between experts, but on a wide basis in the population concerned. It will not occur rapidly in the EU and, even more improbably, in the United States or in other countries of the world.

Also, the Alliance must make proposals that can be realised as immediately as possible, at the levels of social and employment policies, and measures to fight poverty.

The proposal made here is to imagine a series of measures aimed at improving the employment system without awaiting the arrival via political events for a decision to shake up existing circumstances. The complexity of our societies and their plurality pleads in favour of this position.

Our employment system is linked to four other systems and the proposal aims to make this system more sensitive to these other systems.

These four systems are:
The domestic system; the education system; the unemployment system; the retirement system.

The domestic system: Should family and housewife allowances be given (for demographic and social reasons and that of reducing unemployment)? Should more jobs be given to women by setting up nurseries and other forms of child minding or, on the contrary, should aid be given to households so that mothers or fathers can remain at home?

The education system
Should the time children stay at school be extended or, on the contrary, should it be reduced to facilitate earlier integration in the employment system? (Some adolescents no longer tolerate the school system). Facilitate training courses in companies for teachers to improve their understanding of the productive system. Give professionals the possibility of giving courses, for example, in schools and universities, so as to provide information and elements motivating the desire to work. 

The unemployment system 
Unemployment benefit is granted to facilitate seeking new jobs or attending additional training. It supposes that guidance be given in view to helping the person to adapt to new working conditions. The minimum social security benefit and different social minima in a country such as France, permit ensuring that each person obtains a minimum allowance of FFR3,000. This should be combined with more efficient measures either oriented towards social integration, or to employment.

The retirement system
Demographic evolution shows that women and men live longer and in better health. Pensions should be modulated to facilitate the transition between generations and insure against the loss of memorised know-how. Thus our retirement systems should be subject to a large number of modifications.

There is no shortage of ideas to make our employment systems more sensitive to the needs of active human life worthy of our fellow citizens. We know that all social policy measures can have perverse and unpredictable effects. This implies that our systems should be constantly adapted and modified. This cannot be done outside of a vigorous civil society peopled by organisations and grassroots movements as well as a representative system open to proposals from society.

Some synthezising remarks by Hans Harms

As the reader has realized both approaches are well argued and seem to be reasonable. Obviously the first is radical, even revolutionary and would mean a an important change in our societies, whereas the second is more conventional and that means more easily digestible. 

The problem is that we suffer almost thirty years of increasing structural unemployment and we had innumerable and ongoing attempts to “améliorer nos systèmes de l’emploi” so that after all these years it should be allowed to reflect on alternatives without being catalogued as fatalists or pessimists who have lost the confidence in the capacity of the free market to solve these problems. Although the situation on the labour markets has been relatively positive – with important differences between European countries, the events of the last months with the announcement of massive dismissals of numerous multinational companies have restrained the hope that this evolution will continue. In addition, as relevant investigations realized by german universities demonstrate, the impact of the new technologies on the labour market, especially in administration and banking system is still to come and will cause the dismissial of millions of people - only in Germany.

In order to say it with Ulrich Beck: “We have to reflect on the way in which democracy and social integration are possible beyond work. This is one of the fundamental questions which has multitude of possibilities if one pays attention to the discussions of the past, but which until today has not been considered with the sufficient urgency and for which there is no longer a valid answer in the old dichotomy of left and right“. (Reformulation of a left position beyond left and right, in: Archipelago, no. 45/2001, p. 68). 

This point is, from my point of view, the essential one to favorize the radical approach of the basic income in oppsition to Hugues aproach. 

And there in another important argument:  The alternative measures to the creation of new jobs through growth, compitition, social dumping etc., as, for example, the reduction of the working hours as well as other forms of distribution of work or the idea of the basic income and others have an important advantage in comparison with the vain –and since thirty years no kept- promise to create sufficient job for all: these alternative measures are reversible, the social consequences of the traditional approach not. Will say, for people who work in a schedule of reduced working hours (Volkswagen 28 hours, for example), or on part-time, or enjoy a sabatical year thanks to a basic income, it would be no problem to work more hours or to return to the labor market if this would be necessary for market reasons, but what is absolutely not reversible is to exclude people for long phases from this market. As studies on the subject demonstrate to this respect, if people are unemployed during a long time the return to the labor life gets more and more improbable, even if the demanded professional qualifications exist, because of  psycho-social reasons. This phenomenon is known in the corresponding literature as “hysteresis”. This way milliones of people have been burned during in these last 30 mentioned years because we refused to accept to reflect on possible alternatives.

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.

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

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) .

Part 3 - Proposals

Matthieu Calame, Philippe Cacciabue, Iain Farqhart
Susana Poveda (1.6 to 1.11), Samuel Ferret (2.11 to 2.15) 

These proposals are those that were debated during the Peles Assembly. They were also debated on the  forum. This is the reason they are distributed according to the four topics that gave rise to the forum's structure.

They are very diverse; some are for immediate application while others require more time. However, together, these reflections and proposals lead us to state 4 principles and raise a key question:
•	The changes in question here are long term changes that will take time to become effective. We are not limited to what is possible now and in present political and social circumstances, but we point out the reforms we feel are inevitable and which on which we are prepared to wager that they will occur sooner or later, though sooner would be better!
•	We think that all the proposals must try to clearly set out the long-term objectives they aim at achieving, even if they appear impossible to achieve in the near future. Reflection should always be carried out with the future in mind, by not restricting subjects to what is thought acceptable at a given moment by an audience or to what can be achieved already. Experience proves that raising a question in the correct terms naturally leads to solutions.
•	However, a proposal cannot be satisfactory if it just announces pious wishes; it must clearly declare the means it needs at its disposal to achieve its aims, thus the coherence between the declared objectives of a proposal and the tools it develops is capital.
•	Once the final objectives are clear and shared, and once the means for implementing them are known, most of the following social negotiation covers the schedule for achieving the objectives. We are not in a situation where we can simply push a button so that everything changes; any sudden transformation would have disastrous consequences and be refused by the actors. Therefore we must agree on a reasonable rhythm for change, as it is the only way of guaranteeing acceptance and the real success of policies at the lowest social cost.
•	Questions remain in the area of changing international relations and in particular acceptance by Europe's trading partners regarding its rural policy once it interacts with the market. Europe, or at least a large minority of its population, benefits considerably from the globalized economy. In the case where certain European measures met hostility from our partners that then retaliated, to what point would we be prepared to go in a possible trade war? Should we restrict ourselves to measures compatible with WTO rules or should we consider measures contrary to them in the name of higher principles? 

1.  Territory, Food and Health

The link between food and health is the subject of a specific Alliance proposals booklet, as is the subject of food security (security of food supplies). Here, we will only deal with points we feel are fundamental in the European framework while bearing in mind that Europe's economic and cultural influence causes the effects of its policies to extend far beyond its borders. Moreover, we wish to recall that the role of territory in health is not only limited to the question of food. 

The link between food, territory and health comprises three aspects:
1-	The integration of food production and health policies, with the issue of health policy reform in the background.
2-	Security of food supplies.
3-	The therapeutic and social role of an open territory.

1-	Health policies suffer from a chronic lack of preventive measures, leading to failure in formulating a nutrition strategy worthy of the name and totally obscuring the change through time of the nutritional quality of agricultural products. In addition, from the standpoint of health (bacteria, etc.), emphasis has been almost exclusively focused a strategy of asepsis (disinfection and the elimination of all germs). This type of "eradication" strategy is doomed to failure. It is illusory to believe that asepsis is possible outside a closed environment (a test tube!). A microbe will always succeed in adapting and, on its own, will develop and become toxic. The human stomach is also and above all a fermentor of microorganisms without which digestion would be impossible. Therefore it is necessary to develop a conception of hygiene based on the equilibrium between germs rather than on their elimination. 
Then, the link between health and food obviously cannot be reduced to the presence or not of germs, nor of a balance between types of germ. If the diet of a person is unbalanced (e.g., too salty) in relation to the life they lead, they will have health problems. In Western Europe, for example, coronary diseases are common and obesity is becoming frequent. However, an agricultural policy that stresses the importance of such and such a product could modify the food habits of Europeans. By promoting milk, for example, Europe has encouraged over-consumption and its massive use in diets (as in Spain where its use was relatively rare). The same can be said about sugar. On the other hand, little has been done to encourage the consumption of vegetables, which are positive for health. Without going as far as to dictate what Europeans should eat, it is at least possible to lessen encouragement of products whose consumption is already excessive. 
Lastly, it should not be forgotten that food is only one facet of health. Is it reasonable to have tobacco production policies? Not really!
For all that, rural policies can only provide a fraction of the solutions; the problem of various types of pollution, especially atmospheric pollution, will become very serious in the future.

Without going further, we have chosen 11 proposals :
1.1	Base prices on dry matter
1.2	Establish nutritive standards for basic products
1.3	Useless GMOs, GMOs to be banned
1.4	Regulating the use of salt
1.5	A territory for all: democratization of the countryside
1.6	Establish quality standards
1.7	Education for consumption and production
1.8	Organisation of production for consumption
1.9	Develop the production of quality raw materials
1.10	Develop research into GMOs
1.11	Adapt the CAP to sustainable agriculture for quality production

2-	Although there is no threat to food supplies in Europe in the short-term, this issue cannot be separated from the overall issue of supplies and their relationship with trade deregulation (see proposal 4.4). 
3-	As a temporary environment for life and revitalization and as a place for physical exercise the countryside (territory) plays a fundamental role in improving the population's health. Developing it and making it easier to get to, whether for short or long stays, represents a major challenge in improving life space. (see proposal 1.5).

***

Proposal 1.1 base prices on dry matter 

Context and reason - Everyone has fallen victim to the juicy slice of veal or turkey that has disappeared like molten snow when cooked! Unfortunately, the same applies to many other products, such as potatoes, carrots and milk. There is forever more water in them and is not due to chance! 
The voluntary dilution of certain products, such as milk, by producers was practiced for a long time when it is easy to carry out. This practice was forbidden but since it is impossible to check, the result is the application of a minimum definition for milk. For example, below a given threshold of fat content, milk is no longer considered to be milk, etc. 
It has now been established that agricultural practices modify or alter product quality. After all a carrot remains a carrot whatever one does to it (in terms of nitrates, etc.) and however much water it contains. Producers profit from methods that result in products swollen with water, or from storage methods that maintain high water levels in them. And yes, if our juicy slice of veal produced by modern farming methods is cheap, this is so only in appearance. In fact what we are buying is very expensive water! 

Mechanism and implementation– To limit this sale of water, prices should be displayed that are based on the dry matter in food products and not wet matter! At present, the prices displayed in shops (e.g., 2 Euros per kilo) give the price of wet matter, i.e. including the weight of the water contained in the product! On the contrary,  prices should be based on dry matter, the only constituent of the product with any real nutritive value. We would then see that quality products thought of expensive are actually much less so while "cheap" products are in expensive if one analyzes their real nutritive value 
It is relatively easy to calculate the dry matter of products and many products already display it although without linking it to the price. Thus consumers could compare the prices based on the dry matter of two apparently equivalent products (for example, two carrots or two slices of veal). 

The partners concerned – Here is a measure that can be implemented by everyone. There is no need for a complicated technical and legal arsenal. Any shop can decide, at least initially, to display two prices and make measurements (a good oven is enough), while waiting, of course, for this procedure to become standard commercial practice! However, producers and consumer organizations are perfectly capable of doing this too.

Complementary measure – This solution obviously does not solve the problem of balance between different nutriments, since amounts of dry matter do not permit measuring possible deficiencies. However, it does give consumers a useful indication of the real value of the product they buy and a better idea of quality/price ratios.

***

Proposal 1.2  establish nutritive standards for basic products 

Context and reason – to be or not to be a potato, that is the question? The quality of agricultural products has always varied from year to year. However, modernized farming methods, the development of hydroponics, and the use of synthetic fertilizers have radically changed the level of producers' responsibility in final product quality. Today, farmers that over-fertilize their potatoes deliberately commit an action that will modify the nutritional quality of the potatoes they dig out of the ground. Over-rapid cultivation practices cause imbalances in certain functions of the plant's organism, resulting in potatoes containing too much starch in relation to other constituents, for example, magnesium. Since the capacity of the human stomach is limited and cannot increase its ingestion of potatoes, the result will be dietary imbalance, with a lack of magnesium, to continue with our example. 
However, if the dairy producer is responsible in the case of diluted milk, and the miller responsible if he mixes bean flour in his bread, why shouldn't farmers be responsible when they use methods that change the composition of their products?  
Debates have already taken place in Europe over chocolate (what proportion of chocolate butter should be used in chocolate fabrication), so why shouldn't they be held for beef and artichoke production too? 

Mechanism and implementation – in Europe and internationally (codex alimentarius) it is necessary to define a certain number of minimum nutriment thresholds, as has been the case for milk, for products so they deserve the names by which they are called. Abnormal products would be destroyed or sold under another name which would be clearly distinct.

***

Proposal 1.3 Useless GMOs, GMOs to be banned

Context and reason – What is the prion that causes mad cow disease? According to current theory it is an abnormal protein. How are GMOs made? By transferring the genes from one organism to another and synthesizing proteins or, as one French author has written, by putting a fish gene in strawberries. Lastly, the human immune system generally reacts strongly to proteins. This is why doctors recommend against giving too many raw proteins to young children, especially when the protein comes from a very different source. For example, mother's milk is generally ideal whereas raw lentils and peanut butter are not. Giving foreign proteins to very young children can be harmful and result in serious allergies. These three examples show that our knowledge of the genome-protein system remains patchy and that the massive development and marketing eof genetically modified organisms represents a health risk.

This risk is especially great since it does not satisfy any need that cannot be satisfied by other tried and tested methods. Food GMOs are therefore useless and potentially dangerous. For ten harmless products the tenth will surely be harmful (the Starlink strain of corn has been banned in the USA due to its allergenic effects). 

Mechanism and implementation – Since GMOs provide no advantages and represent potential risks, they should be simply banned from European foods.

***

Proposal 1.4 regulating the use of salt 

Context and reasons – The over-consumption of salt is a strong trend in European eating habits. The growth in the consumption of pre-cooked dishes, biscuits, crisps and other snacks is one of the main causes of the over-consumption of salt, leading to disastrous results. The reasons this excess salt consumption appear to be the loss of savor of basic foods. Thus the farm and food industry has increased the salt content in its products, since it is a flavor enhancer. What is more, it is also used to increase consumer's appetites. Passing legislation that restricts the consumer's freedom is difficult, indeed policing people's dishes should be avoided! On the other hand, it would be a good idea to moderate use of salt and possible substitutes by the farming and food industry. 

Mechanism and implementation – Limiting the addition of salt in food could lead to the development of two actions. The first is to provide clear information based on color coding stating whether the product: 
•	has a low salt content, 
•	has a normally high salt content, 
•	has an abnormally high salt content.
The second measure would be to gradually limit the addition of salt to a given threshold.

The parties involved – These are all the farming and food industries, distribution companies and the health services of different countries. It goes without saying that this policy must be accompanied with informaiton being communicated to citizens. 

***

Proposal 1.5 A territory for all: democratization of the countryside 

Context and reason – New services providing "revitalization" in the country are spreading through Europe. These services range from rural hotels providing a wide variety of activities (Yoga course, artistic activities, etc.) in bucolic environments to rural guest houses, camping on farms and even ‘therapy’ farms (often providing psychiatric care sometimes in association with animals). This strong trend will increase. However, other less organized ways of enjoying the countryside should not be forgotten. Obviously, these may be less suitable for generating economic activity but they are more widely accessible to the entire population. The countryside must also provide an environment for activities such as individual and family walks, whether for leisure or sport (bringing the scout movement to mind). Every occasion is worthwhile for whiling away the time in fields and picking flowers, wild fruits, etc. 

There is a great risk in a densely populated Europe of seeing unbridled privatization of the countryside, and the over-organization of space, eventually leading to the disappearance of areas where one can wander freely. On the contrary, we feel that the social, psychological and cultural functions of the countryside are essential for everyone.
There is also a great risk of seeing the countryside fragment due to car use. Cries of alarm are often heard regarding the effects of this fragmentation on wildlife with the separation of animal populations by highways, main roads, etc. But there is no point in going as far afield. There is no network of pedestrian pathways worthy of name that can be used by children and the population in general, in other words people who don't own cars. It is now out of the question to walk three kilometers to school or to a neighboring town since this systematically implies following a road, an unpleasant exercise if any. As for walking or cycling in large cities, they are not even worth speaking about.

Thus the countryside is only open in theory. In fact it is less and less accessible.

Implementation – Certain hiking paths in Europe have shown that it is possible to implement a major program. The "Compostel" paths are exemplary in this respect. A European Walking Network should be set up, a green network that should be given the target of covering even more kilometers than the road network. The first aim of this measure would be conserve the existing network and create connections where they are lacking. All new constructions should be subordinated to the creation of a green link with the center of the commune.
Each conurbation would survey the existing paths and set up a plan for their maintenance and development.
Furthermore, a "path plan" should be incorporated in the community's rural policy and opening up and maintaining private paths should be one of its objectives. 

The parties involved –  all the territorial authorities. 

Finance -  a share of taxes collected on fossil fuels.

***

Proposal 1.6: Establish quality standards 

Context – Food consumption is a dynamic process influenced by several factors that include price and fashion. Other socially related elements that affect daily consumption are family structure, education and status, religion and age. Thus the "quality" of a food product is a very subjective concept and its meaning changes according to each person's point of view. 
To establish quality standards, one must take into account that perception of sensorial, hygienic and nutritive quality changes from country to country in the European Union; however, differences exist within each sector of the food industry, from producer to consumer. Since administrative and production structures usually have little contact with consumers, it is necessary to know how all consumers perceive quality in order to establish quality standards in all the sectors involved.

Actions
•	Consumers' organisations must act as a counter-weight to production; they must also have their own laboratories so they can participate directly in product quality.
•	The definition of quality standards between every sector involved in food.

* * *

Proposal 1.7 Education for consumption and production 

Context – Every day, the share of family income spent on food decreases since the market is oriented towards quantity rather than quality. This is because of a consumption system that does not distinguish different foods according to their nutritive properties. Education directed at consumers could promote demand for healthier and more nutritive products though this requires greater involvement from distributors, manufacturers and producers in order to produce such foods.
As for low income families, it would be very useful to inform them of diets that comply with the nutritional parameters necessary with economically accessible foods (for example, by adding dried fruits in diets).

Actions
· Training for quality production: Restore traditional crafts and food production without abandoning new technologies or quality control.
· Training manufacturers: Incorporation of quality raw materials in the foods produced.
· Information for distributors: Training and information aimed at distributors on the importance of knowledge of the origin of the products they use, traceability, good labelling of products and the need to inform consumers about them.
· Education for consumers:  
Public education aimed at households to teach them to distinguish between the most nutritional products. For low-income families, it is important for them to learn to distinguish about the most accessible products so they can obtain balanced diets.
School education about balanced diets, the importance of quality foods and the pleasure of taste via practical activities, visits to farms and the introduction of biological meals and local products of quality in school canteens.
 Regulations on labelling, which is the most direct method of informing consumers about the foods they buy. For example, in theory nutritional labelling should serve to educate the consumer. At present, it is often used for advertising foods of poor nutritional value.
· University education: Set up university courses in public nutrition in order to train professionals in different sectors (teaching, health, etc.).
· Education of collective catering establishments: Training courses intended for catering professionals: chefs, people handling foods, etc.  

* * *

Proposal 1.8 Organisation of production for consumption

Context – Current long distribution chains cause the value of products distributed on the market to increase substantially. Furthermore, consumers cannot see the links that exist between the product and the producer, hence suspicion about the origin of foods.
Restructuring the organisation of production for consumers so it becomes more direct represents a challenge for the food sector. It is possible to set up alternative distribution systems to those that exist already, in order to bypass the strategies of major distribution chains by organising production in rural areas, developing local markets for direct sale and reducing the role of middlemen to a minimum. 

Actions
•	Reduce the distance between producers and consumers via short marketing channels and reducing the number of middlemen.
•	Support local markets for direct sales and encourage consumption of seasonal varieties.
•	Set up alternative distribution systems to those in place in order to counterbalance the strategies of the major distributors.  

* * *

Proposal 1.9 Develop the production of quality raw materials

Context – Product quality depends on territory and nature: this subject is controversial in Europe and it requires reflection. On the one hand, some feel that territory and nature configure the quality of foods in themselves. On the contrary, others feel that it is scientific and technical progress that gives a new configuration to foods. In order to clarify these two points of view, it is necessary to formulate the quality parameters given to a territory. These can be determined by analysing the endogenous characteristics of the raw materials before determining the characteristics attributed to the foods.
Integrating raw materials in the production of foods preserves the traditional gastronomy of each territory and prevents product standardisation. Origin names and the geographic identification of foods create links with the territory from which they come and enhance the product, but these brands should not be used as marketing devices instead of indicators signifying the relationship of quality and territory.

Actions
•	Integrate quality raw products in food production. 
•	Utilise local varieties to conserve the gastronomic traditions of each territory. 
•	Maintain diversity vis-à-vis product standardisation to prevent the disappearance of food related culture. 

* * *

Proposal 1.10  Develop research into GMOs

Context – The introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the food chain has triggered a new debate due to the risks represented by mass sowing on both human health and the environment.
Most scientific communities have insisted that worries concerning GMOs are unfounded, whereas many European consumers remain unconvinced, mostly because they do not see them as necessary. 
Obviously, we are confronted by a highly complex subject that we must continue to study with caution and with the support of institutions, in order to determine the health risks such new technologies as GMOs may cause. 

Actions
Set up public research teams to determine the health risks GMOs may cause. 

* * *

Proposal 1.11: Adapt the CAP to sustainable agriculture for quality production 

Context – Support from the Common Agricultural Policy for sustainable agriculture is vital in order to evolve towards the production of food of nutritional quality. At present there is no preventive policy aimed at obtaining healthy products and thus reduce illness in the population; only hygiene is controlled, i.e. control of pathogenic organisms. 

Actions
•	Provide aid for the changeover from industrial to sustainable agriculture: lower VAT on products that promote good health. 
•	Set up public research teams that encourage sustainable agriculture with emphasis on the sanitary and nutritive quality of its products.
•	Apply controls on the production of foods with little incidence on good health (or tax these foods and use the revenue to finance the health services)
•	Incorporate new criteria that take into account the weight of dry matter when setting prices.

* * *

2 . Sustainable production systems 

Since 1987, the concept of sustainable development in the Bruntland report has become very popular, even though its has not had many concrete results. With respect to the countryside, it is concerned by sustainable development, due to its inclusion in major multidisciplinary workshops (air, water, soil, energy, etc.) on the one hand, and by agricultural activity in particular on the other.

Controversy exists on the criteria governing the sustainability of agricultural production methods. Among the different systems proposed, at least three were presented in the agriculture chapter of the Rio Earth Summit (1992): biological (ban on chemical products), integrated (limited use of chemical products) and biotechnological  (the development of GMOs).

The extent of rejection of GMOs in Europe implies that they can no longer be considered as credible alternatives. True, if further studies were to show that biotechnologies are liable to lead to much more sustainable production systems, they could possible regain credibility with consumers and citizens. In this case, the future role of biotechnologies would be reconsidered. However, for the moment there is little evidence that this is so. Biotechnologies create very real risks and great uncertainty. 

At the other end of the spectrum, agrobiology systems are often considered as cleaner and friendlier to the environment. Since they have developed over recent years and have benefited from the latest scientific advances, they are based on good understanding of natural cycles. Consequently, they appear to satisfy the principle of precaution very well. Stated bluntly, the mad cow crisis would never have occurred if agrobiology were standard practice, since no agrobiologist would have had the idea of recycling slaughterhouse wastes into animal feed. Agrobiology has withstood the test of time, it is globally sustainable, and it places emphasis on recycling nutriments and the prudent and economic management of soils and natural resources. Furthermore, it does not appear to have been responsible for any serious damage to the environment or human health. 

However, things are rarely as simple as one would wish, and agrobiology is not the best solution for every situation. It is sometimes less efficient than integrated agriculture or methods that use small amounts of fertilizers, i.e. methods that make parsimonious use of agrochemicals for well-defined purposes. 

This point can be illustrated by two examples: 
- Copper based products that are largely used on agrobiology in order to limit rots, are very toxic. Agrochemical companies have developed alternatives that, according to studies using rats, are a thousand times less toxic and degrade quickly in the environment. 

- Water pollution by leached nitrates is a serious problem in many parts of the Union. Agrobiology usually makes use of manures that decompose, releasing nitrates. However, they are not always released at the very moment when needed for crops. Most of the nitrates produced are lost and end up in streams and rivers. On the contrary, artificial nitrates can be applied by spreading in the right amount at the right moment. In this case, the use of chemical fertilizers can reduce leaching and have beneficial effects on water quality. 

A great amount of European legislation concerns the control and use of agrochemical products and there is no doubt that European citizens' groups would like to see them come under even stricter control. However, looking into the effects of each product constitutes an enormous task. The following proposals focus more on setting up an overall strategy aimed at transforming the EU non-sustainable agricultural methods into sustainable ones in the near future. This implies that resource persons are capable of supplying the additional details. In itself, this is part of the strategy of change, that of proposing that the 'specialists' in the sector (researchers, consultants, and technicians) should be oriented toward research into and the promotion of sustainability rather than on reducing the costs and increasing the efficiency and profitability of agribusiness! 

The proposals are :
2.1 Encourage appropriate use of land (SUS1)
2.2 Develop appropriate use of water resources (SUS 2)
2.3 For remedial action to halt the decline of soil life (SUS 3)
2.4 For ameliorating the impact of rural areas on air quality (SUS 4)
2.5 Protection of Bio-diversity (wildlife) (SUS 5)
2.6 Protection of Bio-diversity (Domestic species) (SUS 6)
2.7 A energy tax
2.8 KDR
2.9 Limiting the spreading of nitrates per hectare
2.10 A rural employment policy
2. 11 Reinforce cross compliance within agricultural policy
2.12 Clarify the notion of good agricultural practices 
2.13 Integrate sustainability in agricultural education 
2. 14 Creating new spaces for dialogue on sustainability by stakeholders from all backgrounds
2.15  A strategy for the EU: defending sustainability at the World Trade Organisation (WTO)

These proposals are the subject of a fundamental debate on the balance between constraint and encouragement. This debate has not come to and end even though everyone agrees that:
1)	a certain number of constraints must be applied imposed,
2)	policies that facilitate transition must be implemented.

The debate essentially dealt with the balance between these two imperatives: Should restrictive policies be applied as soon as possible? Is more time needed?

***

Proposal 2.1 to encourage appropriate use of land (SUS1)

Context  and reasons - When technology was less powerful, farmers and other land users were forced to adopt their agricultural practices to local conditions (such as soil quality, water availability, weather patterns and topography). The development of powerful and affordable technologies (but affordable only because of CAP subsidy regimes), allowed farmers to over-ride local conditions and to develop simplified and standardised crop patterns. The use of technology against rather than in concert with natural forces has led to widespread environmental and social problems (ranging from destruction of soils to flooding of human habitations).

The downstream costs of inappropriate land use are rising, as environmental problems accumulate and interact with each other. In the UK, for example, prior to the Foot and Mouth  epidemic, these costs were calculated as being approximately 330 Euros/ hectare/year.

Who would be eligible? - Regional authorities.

Conditions of support - Regional authorities, working with interdisciplinary teams of experts and consultative panels of farmers and other land users would: 
a.	collect information about existing land use and its downstream impacts; 
b.	compile historical information about land use patterns, prior to the second world war (after which changes in land use patterns greatly accelerated); 
c.	draw up plans to reform land use in such a way as to allow new technologies to maximise returns gained, while working within the constraints of natural conditions and cycles. This proposal does not imply that regional authorities should try to recreate the historical past. Rather the intention is to find new ways of using technology to capitalise on natural local conditions, rather than attempting to repress these and then having to pay hidden downstream costs, which result from failures to adapt intelligently to natural forces. The aim would be to draw up long-term strategies for rehabilitating areas, which had been inappropriately developed, with a 50 year time horizon (given that it has taken 50 years to develop inappropriately).

Levels of support - Substantial teams of full time workers or a combination of full time workers and specialist consultants would be required to undertake such work seriously. Budgets in the area of 5 million Euros per annum per region would be required for each natural region to employ around a hundred people and provide associated resources and support.

Financial support - Half of the cost should be borne by regional authorities with the taxes they collect locally (for a region of 1 million people, this would cost 2.5 Euros annually per person). The remaining half should come from EU Regional Development Funds.

Appropriate areas - all rural areas.

Accompanying measures - Regional teams should liase with municipal authorities in towns and cities within or downstream of their regions, to help in the assessment of downstream impacts of any proposed changes. Local authorities may have to pool resources when legislative boundaries do not correspond to natural ecological areas.

Mechanism - Regional authorities would need to appoint regional teams. They would need to consult closely with panels of farmers and other rural land-users to ensure that ultimate plans for redeveloping regions were practical and were based on intimate knowledge of local conditions.

***

Proposal 2.2 to develop appropriate use of water resources (SUS 2)

Context - Water is arguably the most crucial of natural resources. It is essential to all agriculture, to human, animal and plant life and to a great many specific human activities (such as industrial processes, etc.). It is also, through natural systems of drainage and river systems, important in shaping ecosystems. Its patterns of flow, in the form of river systems, river basins and estuaries have shaped historical patterns of human settlement and, with these, human culture.

Reasons for proposing support - Modern efforts to constrain the movements and flows of water have often achieved desirable short-term outcomes but have frequently led to unforseen, expensive and undesirable outcomes, particularly in downstream areas. The draining of certain marshland areas and the engineering of rivers, for example, has frequently led to new crises as downstream areas suffer increasingly serious drought conditions in dry periods, combined with increasingly serious flooding during wet seasons.

Who would be eligible? - Regional environmental authorities.

Conditions for support - Regional environmental authorities already have responsibilities to develop local environment action plans based on water catchments. Under EU legislation, they are also required to undertake local consultation processes with water and river stakeholders. However the process of consultation is frequently too cursory and environment authorities or agencies are not making sufficient progress to meet targets set by the EU for river water quality (in at least part of most EU rivers). Under this proposal, environment authorities would be required to consult more actively by participating in the process outlined in SUS1 and by participating and contributing towards Proposal CON3 (see Appendix 3). They would be required to meet existing standards and to actively seek solutions for long term improvements in both water quality and flow control, re-introducing wherever possible natural patterns of water harvesting which were destroyed by inappropriate drainage and river engineering.

Levels of support - Environment authorities would receive 5% increases in their budgets.

Sources of financial support - Half from national Public Sector Budgets and half from the Rural Development Budget.

Appropriate Areas - All EU water catchments

Accompanying Measures - Proposal SUS1 and CON3.

Mechanism - Reform of Environment agencies to develop more active liaison with citizens.

***

Proposal 2.3 for remedial action to halt the decline of soil life (SUS 3)

Context - Soils have been taken for granted in many EU countries. It is only recently that land users and policy makers have begun to appreciate that soils are a finite and important resource. The use of agro-chemicals has allowed farmers to disregard the health of soils and even to continue production without “living soils”. More recently, awareness has grown of the importance of soils in regulating water movements, in acting effectively as reservoirs, in breaking down chemicals (through microbial activity) and in effecting air quality (by absorbing or releasing gases). At the same time, it has become apparent that many soils suffer from salination (in hot areas where irrigation has been used extensively), from acidification (particularly when exposed to nitrous oxide produced by chemicals industries), from declines in organic matter content (particularly in arable areas) as well as from the more obvious problems of wind and water erosion. 

Reasons for proposing support - Scientific understanding of soils is still limited, particularly as regards the biological activity they sustain. EU countries are only now beginning to develop national strategies for protecting and/or enhancing soil protection. However many soils have arrived at a crisis point where they could be irreversibly damaged by organic matter levels falling below the critical thresholds, which are necessary for maintaining soil structure and the survival of soil organisms. This proposal would pay farmers and land-owners to provide basic information about the state of biological activity in the soils to help countries to develop national strategies for remedying damage to soils.

Who would be eligible? - Farmers and land-owners.

Conditions for support - Farmers and land-owners would be paid to undertake minimal surveys of their land and to report results to regionally or nationally held soils databases. A precise procedure would need to be agreed with soils experts but could be based on measuring carbon/nitrogen ratios and numbers of earthworm holes in March and April.
Where land owners find that organic matter levels were below 2% (as implied by the indicators mentioned above) they would be encouraged to undertake remedial action to build up organic matter levels (one method of doing this is proposed in Proposal CON 6).

Levels of support - Payments should offer sufficient inducement for landowners to undertake the work.

Source of financial support - Rural Development Funds.

Appropriate areas - All rural areas.

Accompanying measures - Environmental Ministries or agencies in EU countries should undertake reviews of the states of their soils.

Mechanism - Publication of schemes by environmental authorities. Direct contacts with farmers.

***

Proposal 2.4 for ameliorating the impact of rural areas on air quality (SUS 4)

Context - Rural areas have a major impact on air quality. Not only do they have negative impacts (for example, agro-chemical sprays add to the toxic load of air and adversely effect human and animal health), but they also have positive impacts (removing, absorbing and breaking down air borne chemicals.).

Reasons for proposing support - Potentially rural areas could act as purifiers of the air. They already do this to some extent (by, for example, acting as carbon sinks and by absorbing nitrous oxide and other gases). This function could be enhanced by better land management and by modifying agricultural practices. However, at present the overall balance of the contribution to air quality is not monitored systematically. This makes it difficult to propose specific approaches to crop rotations or to other aspects of land management, to optimise the contribution of rural areas to achieving good air quality.

Who would be eligible? - A representative sample of farmers and landowners, who manage the land in ways which are characteristic of the regions or in ways which were innovative.

Conditions of support - Farmers and landowners would be paid to work (with appropriate scientific advisors) to assess the overall contribution of their enterprises to air quality (both negative and positive). They would be encouraged to work with experts to investigate ways in which their overall contribution to air quality could be enhanced.

Levels of support - Payments should offer sufficient inducement for landowners to undertake the work.

Source of financial support - Rural Development Funds.

Appropriate areas - All rural areas.

Accompanying measures - Specific proposals like those contained in CON 4  would support positive action to improve air quality (in the case of this particular proposal, the improvement is particularly focussed on the continent's overall carbon balance, which impacts on the greenhouse effect).

Mechanism - Publication of the scheme by environmental authorities. Direct contacts with farmers.

***

Proposal 2.5 Protection of Bio-diversity (wildlife) (SUS 5)

Context - A considerable number of plant and animal species have disappeared from various regions in the EU in the last 50 years and a considerable number continue to be under threat. EU countries as signatories to the Bioldiversity Convention are required to undertake Biodiversity Action Plans, aimed at identifying species under threat and at carrying out remedial action.

Reasons for proposing support - Biodiversity Action Plans tend to focus on specific regions, while actions, aimed at protecting particular species, are often focussed on isolated habitats which exist as islands of wildlife in a surrounding context of urban development or intensive farming. However some species (particularly those at the top of the food chain) need larger wild areas to continue to thrive. Action Plans which focus on individual regions are likely therefore to be enhanced by being linked in continent wide networks which would allow wildlife to move more freely, without having to cross urban areas or areas of intensive farming.

Who would be eligible? - Landowners or managers who manage land between wild areas or centers of biodiversity, particularly where species had been identified as being under threat of extinction.

Conditions of support - Land managers in these areas would be required to provide wildlife corridors, allowing animals to move between otherwise isolated habitats The aim would be to develop a network of corridors uniting the whole of the continent.

Levels of support - These should be compensation payments, based on the existing profitability of areas taken out of production, plus an additional 10% to provide positive inducements.

Source of Financial Support - Structural Funds.

Appropriate Areas - In particular, areas where movements of wildlife are restricted by urban development and intensive farming.

Accompanying Measures - Long distance footpaths across the continent could follow wildlife corridors, providing an amenity value, in addition to a positive contribution to biodiversity.

Mechanisms - Consultation with authorities responsible for carrying out Biodiversity Action Plans and with NGOs, plus relevant landowners.

***

Proposal 2.6 Protection of Bio-diversity (Domestic species) (SUS 6)

Context - Plant and animal species used in agriculture have been selected over thousands of years, because of their suitability to local conditions in different parts of Europe.

Reason for support - Over the last 50 years many of these breeds have become very rare as standardised approaches to farming have developed (concentrating on a few high yielding breeds). Rare breeds offer a more diverse gene pool. Previous crises in farming (where a plant or animal disease has swept through genetically uniform breeds) have in some cases been solved by drawing on and breeding from a wider genetic pool which includes genes resistant to the agent responsible for the epidemic. This measure is therefore also a precautionary measure.

Who would be eligible? – Famers and landowners interested in preserving rare breeds of plants and animals.

Conditions for support - Recipients of support would be required to maintain the diversity of plants and animals (by using rare breeds in their farming systems) and to make rare breeds available to conventional farmers or breeders in the event of epidemic or other difficulties which threatened the viability of mainstream agricultural production.

Levels of support - Sufficient to provide farmers with an income equivalent to comparable farmers in the region who were following mainstream commercial approaches to agriculture.

Appropriate areas - All areas from which surviving rare breeds originally came.

Accompanying measures - Genetic research which produced better knowledge of the relationship between these breeds distinctive genetic structures and the characteristics which they display (their phenotypical characteristics).

Mechanism - Ministries of Agriculture would devise schemes and publicise them as a potential option for farmers.

***

Proposal 2.7 A energy tax

Problem - Energy consumption is one of the main aspects of modern societies regarding the environment and obviously of agriculture. Energy consumption by agriculture has increased remarkably over the last fifty years due to mechanization, nitrate fertilizers and greenhouse productions. Other factors include transport, energy costly conservation methods (cold chains) and the generalization of uniform eating habits leading to the consumption of products without regard for their place of production (for example, imports of cucumbers from Norway). At the same time, the problems of overproduction have led to plans to get agriculture to produce energy from its surpluses, e.g., diester, rapeseed oil etc. However, the energy balances of these products are difficult to establish and very variable. In fact, establishing energy balances at present is extremely difficult due to a lack of data. Thus the energy balance of agriculture remains to done.

Proposal - The introduction of an Eadded Energy Tax based on the VAT (Value Added Tax) system, which would partially substitute the latter and recording the energy traceability of products. Each company would be responsible for calculating its energy consumption and the energy contained in its exports. This cost would be added to the cost of its production. Making transport and energy hungry conservation methods more expensive, would encourage the use of more environmentally friendly modes of consumption.

Comment - The energy problem is not limited to agriculture alone and it would be interesting to extend this principle to all activities. The involvement of agriculture in other sectors of production leaves few alternatives. Either we set up a global energy policy or else we must implement isolated actions. Therefore, without general application, it would be very difficult to appreciate the real effect of such a measure. This added energy tax could take the place of other taxes on petroleum products since it would be more global and more complete. 

Implementation - It appears more natural for a measure such as this to be introduced in the framework of the tax harmonization due to take place in Europe and that of the Rio and Kyoto agreements. 

***

Proposal 2.8 KDR

Problem - Biocidal products comprise all herbicides, fungicides and insecticides, which eradicate 'weeds', fungi and insects. To this list can be added shorteners: these are hormones that block the growth of cereal stalks. These products are clearly toxic in strong doses. Their utilization should be limited and some measures have been taken already regarding certain biocides. However, there is no general principle for evaluating and comparing the practices of farmers over one year.

Proposal - When seeking to certify any product, the applicant for certification must carry out an LD 50 (Lethal Dose 50). LD 50 is used to determine the number of milligrams of a product needed to kill 50 rats out of a batch of 100 after injection. This provides a kind of toxicity index. On the basis of this index, it is possible to calculate for a given treatment the number of rats that could have been killed by injection. Thus, if a farmer uses 200 grams of product P per hectare and the LD 50 of this product is 2 grams/kilogram, this means that he has spread a toxic dose capable of killing 100 kilograms of rats by injection. We say that this treatment corresponds to 100 Kilograms of Dead Rats per hectare (KDR/ha). It is then possible to calculate over one year the KDR/ha of a series of treatments and to compare them to another series. It is also possible set a threshold (e.g., no more than 15,000 KDR, i.e. the equivalent of a lethal dose for 15 tonnes of rats per hectare!) and lower this limit through time! 

Comment - Although this measurement remains imperfect, since it does not measure a product's longevity (certain products degrade very slowly while other very rapidly) or its solubility, it is useful to use existing obligatory measurements that cannot be contested. These indexes can be totaled, thus they can be used to make comparisons. Another option is to substitute a threshold with a tax on toxic products, the KDR can also be used as the basis of a tax per point of KRD.

Implementation - this is simple since all the tools exist already. All that is necessary is for the proposal to circulate!

***

Proposal 2.9 Limiting the spreading of nitrates per hectare

Problem - The massive use of mineral nitrogen is the keystone in the development of chemical agriculture and it is also the source of abnormal agronomic practices: forever shorter crop rotations and land used for single crops such as wheat and corn. These agronomic practices have led to increased biocide consumption, soil degradation, the overproduction of certain foodstuffs and the underproduction of others. The energy balance of nitrogen is rather poor. If nitrogen consumption is not subject to regulations, then these problems will remain.

Proposal - The use of nitrogen should be limited per farm by setting a limit to average consumption of 80 kilograms of nitrates per hectare. We are speaking of average consumption, which means that a farmer could put 160 kg of nitrates on one hectare and nothing on another. 

Comment - This measure is extremely simple to implement and will lead farmers naturally to balance their rotations better since they will gain greater advantage from planting crops with low nitrogen consumption or which fix it to offset the effects of high nitrogen consuming crops such as cereals. Doing this would considerably reduce European overproduction of cereals and also make up for its deficit in proteins. It would contribute to the return of agronomically more balanced systems. This measure can be progressive: limitation to 160 units of nitrogen for the first two years, 140 the second and so on.

Implementation - It should be part of the environmental conditions for receiving public aid. Before being applied generally, it should be introduced gradually in the specifications of sustainable agriculture, which is flourishing.

***

Proposal 2.10 A rural employment policy

Problem - for decades, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has mostly been focused on supporting production: subsidies for wheat, milk, meat and so forth. These public subsidy procedures are to a great extent the reason for the CAP’s failure regarding territorial development, production management. Furthermore, and not without reason, these production subsidies are contested  by Europe's economic partners which consider this practice as a form of dumping. How can public subsidies be oriented so as to stimulate the development of urban areas? 

Proposal - The shepherd method does cannot solve every problem of rural development, but is does provide a response in terms of support to activities in rural areas linked with the territory. The idea is to give a subsidy per hectare regardless of the type of production (agriculture, forestry, tourism). The subsidy would not be given on the basis of active worker but per hectare as a function of the number of active workers and by a lump sum system. For example, one active worker would give entitlement to 1 hectare subsidised at 3,000 Euros, 4 hectares subsidised at 1,500 Euros, 10 hectares at 750 Euros, 35 hectares subsidised at 375 Euros, 50 hectares subsidised at 180 Euros, 100 hectares subsidised at 90 Euros and nothing over this. An enterprise with two employees would therefore be entitled to 3,000 Euros, 8 hectares subsidised up to 1.500 Euros and so on. This system would give stronger support to activities creating more jobs that are handicapped by the current situation. It means supporting activities disconnected from yields, it puts a strong brake on expansion and it allows a large margin of manoeuvre to local players. Lastly, it acknowledges that in setting up, activities, agriculture is not the only method of stimulating rural areas. It should be noted that the notion of active worker is independent of the notion of owner, and only gives entitlement to subsidies to persons able to prove they effectively use the land for their professional activity. Being the owner of an estate of 200 hectares left fallow does not give right to any aid!    
   
Comment - This measure does not solve environmental and over-production problems. Regarding the promotion of sustainable territorial systems, it comes into its own only when linked with specific policies aimed at the environment and production management. It is part of a rationale that postulates that the multifunctional management of areas requires implementing specific measures for each of the functions identified. The purpose of this measure is exclusively support activities linked with the territory. 

Implementation - This measure is consistent with the current trend of European policy. It should obtain support from all rural entrepreneurs and elected representatives.	 

***

Proposal 2. 11 Reinforce cross compliance within agricultural policy

Context and reason - In 1999, the Berlin agreement brought into play a new tool in agricultural policy: cross compliance for subsidies. The purpose of this tool is to link the payment of direct subsidies to farmers to compliance with environmental protection requirements. Protection of water, soil and biodiversity are areas given priority in many EU countries where the state of the environment continues to deteriorate under pressure from intensive farming. Reinforcing this system in the next Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform, by 2006 at the latest, should occur along with more consistent links with other systems already in existence, especially between agricultural and environmental policy tools. Cross compliance has the advantage of providing greater clarity than other instruments regarding the use and legitimacy of direct subsidies, as seen in the United States and Switzerland. For example, in the United States, the protection of soils against erosion and the management of wetlands to protect biodiversity are functions recognised by most farmers and local authorities, for maintaining both levels of productivity and different types of rural environment.

Mechanism – The cross-compliance system is part of the CAP's overall rules and applicable to all federative organisations active in the market. Thus cross compliance is not part of the rural development rules (RDR). It stipulates that member states can implement measures to protect natural resources and the environment and subject direct subsidies to compliance with the environmental requirements defined by them. In the case of failure to comply with these requirements, the member state must sanction offending farmers by withdrawing part (a certain percentage) or all of their direct subsidies or production quotas.

Implementation – The system of 1999 incorporates the principle of subsidiarity, i.e. the EU gives member states relatively wide scope to apply measures according to their national priorities regarding environmental protection. For example, in France, the target set by the Ministry of Agriculture has been the quantitative management of water resources, with the obligation for farmers to practice irrigation, declare the quantities of water taken during the first year, and the installation of water meters during the second year. 
In view to widening the environmental targets planned in the cross compliance system in the forthcoming reform of the CAP, each member state must prepare the following actions:
•	prepare farmers for the environmental requirements of direct subsidies, which has already been planned and allowed in the agricultural agreement of the Uruguay Round (green box subsidies);
•	reinforcing the sovereignty of states regarding compliance with community environmental protection directives: nitrate directives, polluter-payer principle, etc.;
•	identify the different environmental targets for each subsidy system or marketing co-operative (agricultural co-operatives, beef, etc.). Concerning productions not covered by agricultural co-operatives (e.g., pork), compliance and application of the environmental rules in force;
•	make farmers aware of the importance of managing natural resources: the extension of voluntary programmes (e.g., collective management contracts managed locally);
•	train farmers to protect resources in view to maintaining high productivity levels (combat against soil erosion, etc.);
•	study the impact of cross compliance on farming strategies: enlargement, reduced intensification, recycling and treatment of pollution from livestock, rational fertilisation and treatment practices, etc.

* * *

Proposal 2.12 Clarify the notion of good agricultural practices 

Context and reason – In Europe, a variety of alternative types of farming exist, as well as a wide range of environmental standards that indicate levels of environmental performance, better treatment of animals or a specific type of processing. Often, a large number of consumers and even farmers are not informed of what these labels and types of farming imply, since they make distinctions between approaches regarding products (1), systems (2) and sometimes both at the same time (3). These standards and labels often stem from strategies formulated by the agricultural sectors or groups of farmers involved. In the future, agricultural subsidies will certainly be subject to good practices, and compliance with these will become an obligatory criterion of access to markets, before they can reach the stage of occupying a segment of the market.
Mechanism – A panorama of alternative agricultural practices and environmental labels in each member state would make it possible to specify the nature of environmental standards. For better understanding of the plan formulated by the Community, it is vital to decipher each case study by using multi-criteria indicators in a multidisciplinary framework (at expert level) with multiple actors (by associating research teams, NGOs, and organisations of farmers, consumers and nature conservationists). A work group directed jointly by the European Commission and the European Parliament could be given the responsibility of carrying out such a project. Besides dealing with the environmental aspects of standards, it would above all examine the impact on consumption, food and the type of agricultural system encouraged.
Implementation – The aim is to create a typology of good farm practices in Europe as a function of different labels and approaches that highlight the best of them in terms of environment and sustainability, by analysing their different systems of evaluation and control (certification, qualification, etc.). This would make it possible to take into account the complexity of these different public, private and collective initiatives, proving or disproving their value, in order to achieve better clarity. Certain European nature conservation organisations identify three standards that correspond to different levels of environmental performance: (1) biological agriculture, (2) good agricultural practices, and (3) minimum legal requirements. 
Agricultural policy in Switzerland, and more recently the programme of the German Ministry of Consumption Food and Agriculture, have also identified three levels of agriculture: (1) "conventional" farming (non-subsidised in Switzerland) or "industrial" in Germany, (2) integrated production (IP in Switzerland), or good agricultural practices (Germany) and lastly, (3), biological agriculture. These types of classifications have the advantage of simplifying the presentation of environmental standards, though they only give a partial explanation of the very different nature of alternative types of agriculture found between "bio" and "industrial". However, the segment between biological agriculture and good agricultural practices is very occupied, especially by sustainable agriculture, integrated farming and rational farming. Thus it is vital to go further in the analysis and specify how these other forms of farming provide different types of ecological services and, consequently, different standards. 
Lastly, in relation with the debates on multi-functionalism, emphasis could also be given to those production methods that produce negative effects on the environment, in which case they are subject to sanction and regulations, or positive effects in terms of multi-functionalism, in which case they can be rewarded by public policies.

* * *

Proposal 2.13 Integrate sustainability in agricultural education 

Context and reason – Recent agricultural policies increasingly incorporate requirements for sustainable development, whether at Community level in Agenda 2000, or at national level through agro-environmental measures and new agreements made between farmers and the public authorities. New schemes implemented in particular by the Rural Development Regulations (RDR) make use of new skills from different actors involved in one level or another of sustainable agriculture. In France, for example, the system of territorial farm contracts brings to light several notions at the heart of changes in farming: contracts, territory and the global approach to farming. Much use is made of continuing education given to farmers and the skills of training organisations, consultants and experts in popularisation. New strategies of training and assisting groups of farmers to change are required from the public authorities to facilitate the transition from traditional to sustainable farming.

Mechanism – Sustainable agriculture is quite the contrary of a system: it is a new approach to agricultural development that attempts to solve the questions raised concerning the functions and role of agriculture in society. In addition, sustainable agriculture is not a rigid system, rather it is a permanent quest for the conditions that best satisfy the farmer's need for income, and the requirements of citizens and consumers. However, sustainable agriculture also gives impetus for learning about the stakes behind sustainability, first on the scale of farms themselves and then on a larger one. This is the approach taken in Europe by groups of volunteer farmers who have formulated technical references and decision-aid tools thanks to new training programmes. Consequently, sustainability must be conceived, taught and learned from agricultural school to working on the farm, by both teachers of the profession and consultants. Public authorities play a decisive role in ensuring the process, while success depends on the desire of the actors, especially farmers.

Implementation – Facilitating the implementation of sustainable agriculture should be done at institutional, Community and national levels by diffusing knowledge on the methods and approaches involved which are not exclusive to the Ministry of Agriculture or DG AGRI, for example, but which are also acceptable to the Ministries of the Environment, Consumption and Public Health. Inter-ministerial work groups could be set up at European and national levels to deal with this subject, with decentralisation of the process to the regions. The next step would be to identify the different levels at which training in sustainable agriculture could be given, starting with administrations with responsibility for agriculture. This comprises the following levels: the evaluation of sustainability by research and forward studies; training the personnel in the administration: teachers, professors, etc.; the incorporation of sustainability in new training modules; updating programmes and creating new curricula: biological farming, sustainable agricultural systems, knowledge of the territory; conversion of farms, etc. Far from being applied mechanically, this range of actions from agricultural policy to the farm itself, should also make use of innovative groups at local and regional level, i.e. groups of farmers changing over to sustainable agriculture, regional networks of farms showcasing sustainable agriculture, drawing up a list of innovative methods and technical-economic references, with the support of local and regional authorities. 

* * *

Proposal 2. 14 Creating new spaces for dialogue on sustainability by stakeholders from all backgrounds

Context and reason – Sustainable development cannot be decreed from above, it must be discussed and negotiated both locally and globally. Although sustainable agriculture incorporates a process of apprenticeship, the question does not concern farmers alone but all those involved in the agricultural and food sectors, starting with consumers. On the one hand, farmers seek sustainable agriculture, on the other, consumers expect sustainable methods of food production. Although farmers consider sustainability as a system of indicators, cultural practices and agricultural policy, these questions are perceived differently by non-informed citizens. The problem for the consumer therefore resides in his or her definition of sustainability in this debate. Tangible definitions of sustainable agriculture can be found in reports on farmers' experiences it and on analysis of agrarian systems using economic indicators (the hard side) and their social implications (the soft side). How can the public in search of information on food quality and the environment be informed of the philosophy used by these approaches and the need for resources to implement them? These questions must be asked before building new alliances in civil society between farmers, consumers and ecologists.

Mechanism – The multi-stakeholder debates between organisations of farmers and consumers represent privileged areas of dialogue that permit mutual learning based on the questions, expectations, problems and responses expressed by the different parties involved. New places of mediation are needed so that civil society can express complaints and proposals. Politicians should give them recognition and try to get every category of stakeholder and institution to join in a common process of learning and creative interaction. Since the problem of sustainable development is consubstantial to that of methods of governance, it is up to all the organised stakeholders to contribute and take initiatives at the most appropriate levels with those acting in a voluntary capacity. 

Implementation – Local and regional debates between different stakeholders are required in order to remove the partitions between questions concerning the future of agriculture and the rural world. However, changing conditions and knowledge appears just as vital to facilitate the development of sustainable agriculture. Since changes occur through action, it is also important to identify the different steps involved in carrying out projects that bring together, for example, groups of farmers and consumers: (1) first bring farmers', consumers' and environmental organisations together at local and regional levels to deal with a common problem, for example, the relationship between food habits and farming systems; (2) use the structure of new alliances in European civil society between farmers, ecologists and consumers and also scientists and politicians by organising meetings and via communication; (3) collectively identify within these new coalitions the barriers and conditions related to achieving the changes required to bring about sustainable development: at the level of farms, groups of farmers, territories, policies, the market, research, education, etc.;  (4) joint proposals for action at local level between different stakeholders to push changes in favour of sustainability in production, consumption, etc., such as setting up local markets and co-operatives for bio-products. In short, the new alliances that are being forged in Europe between producers and citizens active in consumer and nature conservation organisations should be seen as the catalysts of a sustainable and multifunctional agriculture that seeks efficiency and responsibility. Lastly, whatever the case, in the future there will be no choice other than sustainable agriculture. The projects of the future will most certainly include the conversion of industrial agriculture and the invention of modes of local governance, above all based on innovative social contracts.

* * *

Proposal 2.15  A strategy for the EU: defending sustainability at the World Trade Organisation (WTO)

Context and reason – If the agricultural agreement of the Uruguay Round (AAUR) is renegotiated at the next ministerial conference of the WTO at the end of 2001 in Qatar, the EU should prepare a clear and coherent strategy to defend the sustainable development of agriculture. With its trade dispute settlement system, the WTO is more powerful than the European institutions responsible for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The Berlin agreement of 1999 has not allowed the EU to foresee a strategy for dealing with agricultural negotiations under favourable conditions, since the heads of State postponed serious debate on reforming the WTO. Farming is dealt with from several angles at the WTO. There is the Agricultural Agreement of the Uruguay Round (AAUR), the agreement on trade on intellectual property (TRIPS), the sanitary products agreement (SPS), and the technical obstacles to trade agreement (TOT). The dispute settlement system makes the WTO the only authority capable of imposing sanctions. Hence the interest for the EU to play an active role and take initiatives in favour of sustainable development in agriculture.

Mechanism – The successive reforms of 1992 and 1999 were carried out respectively in the frameworks of the public policies recommended by the Blair House agreement and the agricultural agreement of the Uruguay Round. These reforms are based on three Community  commitments for the period from 2000 to 2006, which define the framework of Agenda 2000, i.e. stabilise European public expenditure, integrate candidates for EU membership, starting with Central and Eastern European Countries, renegotiate world trade rules in the framework of the WTO to continue deregulating markets, without excluding the agricultural sector. The Commission's priorities, that can be summed up by the slogan "competitive, sustainable and focused on quality", should result in a reformed agricultural policy based on sustainable development, which is both the desire of civil society and the guiding principle in multilateral negotiations.

Implementation – What strategy will the EU defend at the next inter-ministerial conference at Qatar? If its tactic is to defend the European agricultural system, then the many questions remaining to be answered make the negotiations very uncertain. CAP 99 is an impossible compromise and the EU is bereft of any project for agriculture and the rural world. Although it declares itself in favour of sustainable agriculture and multifunctionalism, these intentions fail to hide the real stakes in play: the negotiation of budgets and the rate of return on investments for each member State. Thus it is urgent to situate sustainable development at the heart of the forthcoming negotiations. Agenda 2000 gives a glimpse of the possibilities for progressively rebalancing subsidies in favour of rural development and taking into account multifunctionalism by rewarding the services rendered by agriculture to the community. Nevertheless, the EU must choose an unequivocal position on sustainable development at the WTO: that of defending the farmers of developed countries without compromising the capacity of farmers in developing countries to continue along the path of sustainable agriculture. To achieve this, the EU must commit itself to several points in the AAUR: (1) eliminate export subsidies for agricultural products which ruin the economies of developing countries, (2) recognise the right of developing countries to choose appropriate protective measures related to agricultural products at their borders, (3) defend the SPS agreement, with labels of origin for greater protection of consumers and public health in both the North and South, (4) and maintain domestic aid for farmers provided it is subject to ecological services and rural development.

***

3. New contracts between farmers and society 

Even in the coordination team, the specific position of farmers gave rise to wide ranging debate. Some think that the farming profession is distinct from others for several reasons and so it is entitled to special treatment, because it benefits from the CAP and because it has been the target of specific policies in the past. Others feel that it is this very distinction that is the cause of the rural demise. The fact of turning the European countryside exclusively into an agricultural production area, with special status being given to farming, has handicapped the development of a more balanced rural society.

That being so, the two positions:
1)	do not deny the ‘current position of agriculture’,
2)	do not deny the need to consider the "conversion" of farmers so that can manage the period after total agriculture or nothing. For reasons of tact, the term agriculture could be used for activities that, strictly speaking, are outside its scope (therapy, education, hotels, maintaining the countryside).

This is why, beyond quarrels about definitions and views, it has been possible to agree on the need for a transition period for farmers so they can fulfil other roles that better satisfy social demand. 

This leads to two key questions:
1)	If these aids simultaneously condition the viability of European agriculture, how is it possible to avoid them being seen as a form of disguised subsidies for agriculture?
2)	Should these aids be limited only to farmers or should other rural actors (forestry workers, hotelkeepers, etc.) be given grants too? This dilemma is clearly illustrated by proposal 4, which aims at mobilizing farmers against the greenhouse effect by encouraging them to replant forests!
Setting up mechanisms therefore requires:
•	Clear definition of the "new services" that the countryside should provide,
•	Set up mechanisms that prevent these funds from being diverted in agriculture. This requires that the mechanisms are based on indicators characteristic of the service expected,
•	Develop methods of definition and regulation that imply the physical presence of all the social actors involved. Since agriculture is not the only profession or activity practiced, it seems obvious that social dialogue based only on face to face meetings between farmers and the public authorities will lead to conflict. This is why the proposals must also aim at defining the parties involved and which must be associated with managing the transition. In a general way, there is an apparent need to substantially back up local methods of regulation in order to avoid national or European standards being applied to the "correct European countryside", the "correct European hedge", "wild animals deserving protection", etc. 

The current proposals are to:
-	3.1 Support conservation of the countryside, by proposing that part of the taxes generated from tourism are used at local level to remunerate rural elements considered as characteristic,
-	3.2 Extend the scope of agro-environmental measures: these environmental protection measures set up by the EU are a good starting block. In comparison to the previous proposal, the aim is not to conserve but recreate more diversified landscapes in areas despoiled by modern farming techniques.
-	3.3 Implement specific water management measures by promoting the development of collective management per catchment area that associates farmers, anglers, hotelkeepers, etc. 
-	3.4 Get farmers to participate in the fight against the greenhouse effect by promoting the planting of forests that conforms to regional characteristics (not just any species just anywhere in Europe).
-	3.5 Promote keeping the countryside near urban centers open and accessible, since the countryside around towns and cities plays a special role. Indeed, it is a showcase for the rural world on the one hand, and it can play an even more decisive role than more remote rural areas on the other. 
-	3.6 Grant tax exemptions to citizens and farmers involved in sorting and recycling organic wastes.
-	3.7 Use some of the taxes on the most pollutant leisure activities to support non-pollutant activities.
-	3.8 Promote more balanced diets.
-	3.9 Maintain and promote diversified eating habits.
-	3.10 Support teaching activities.
-	3.11 Conditioning European aid to the maintenance of paths

***

Proposal 3.1 for supporting landscape conservation in remote rural areas (CON1)

ooo This first proposal  considers how farmers could be supported for conserving traditional and semi-traditional rural landscapes in areas which are remote from large centres of population.  ooo

Context - Management of traditional and semi-traditional agricultural landscapes benefits citizens directly (as potential visitors to the countryside) and indirectly by contributing to the tourist industry (and therefore to the strength of the national economy). In a message sent to the previous forum (Barcelona99) there was a description of the case of a Welsh sheep farmer whose farm was featured in tourist posters, used by the Welsh Tourist Authority. The price of sheep and lambs was so low that the farmer could hardly survive.  In fact, often he had to sell his animals at prices, which were less than the cost of production. His farm looked beautiful however and was being used to encourage tourists from all over the world to visit Wales.  His point was: “How can my farm be used by the Tourist Authority to give an impression of idyllic rural life in Wales, when in fact I and my family are nearly starving?”

Purpose (CON1) - To preserve traditional and semi-traditional agricultural landscapes in remote rural areas

Reason for proposing support - Farmers cannot compete in global markets when they farm in less favoured areas. However, the landscapes associated with traditional farming practices attract tourists and provide revenue to tourist industries. Farmers should be paid to maintain those landscapes, which provide a major source of attraction for tourists.

Who would be eligible? - Farmers (and other land managers) in farming regions where tourism employs a third of the working population or more and where surveys of visitors show that the attractiveness of the landscape has contributed significantly to their decision to visit the area (Tourist Authorities routinely undertake surveys of visitors).

Conditions of support - Farmers would be required to maintain traditional landscapes (for example by maintaining “dry stone walls” in sheep country in the North of England). They would be required to practice only extensive farming practices (i.e. not exceed certain stocking densities, specific to local conditions). They should be encouraged to adopt farming practices which conserve natural resources and which encourage good water quality (in many cases these will be mountainous or upland regions which are also the sources of rivers – avoiding pollution of water sources is essential for ensuring good water quality downstream). Additional inducements should be provided in these areas for farmers to adopt organic practices.

Levels of support - These would need to be negotiated at a local level. However, the payments should be sufficient to provide farmers with a level of income, which would be enough to encourage their children to want to continue farming in the region (taking into account the profits which would be made from selling stock or other agricultural products).

Source of financial support - Existing taxes levied on the tourist industry and its employees, both locally and nationally (for example “business rates”, levied by local authorities on tourist enterprises and income tax, levied by national governments on workers in the tourist industry) should be partially recycled to support landscape conservation. Payments made as a result of this recycling of tax revenue, should be co-financed from the EU Structural Funds.

Appropriate areas -  These are most likely to be mountainous and upland regions but would also include other regions (e.g. Aquitaine in France, Breckland in the UK), which are distant from centres of population. I will propose a different mechanism for landscape conservation (Proposal CON5) near to centres of population, in a subsequent message.

Accompanying measures - Farmers who participated should be encouraged to adopt the highest environmental standards (ideally organic) and to increase their margins by marketing their produce at a premium with a regional label or other quality labels. They should receive support (under the Rural Enterprise Scheme) for setting up regional marketing cooperatives and support during a five year set-up period for advertising campaigns, to establish the regional label (if such a label does not already exist). Where a food tradition exists (e.g. Roquefort cheese, Cumberland sausage) advertising should make links between the quality of environmental and landscape management and the distinctive nature of local products (see Proposal CON9).

Mechanism - Dialogue between farmers, tourist operators, local residents, local NGOs and local government (in well-defined ecological zones with distinctive farming traditions). The purpose of the dialogue would be to establish a consensus among the stakeholders a. that farmers are providing a service which benefits the tourist industry (and therefore the local and national economies) and b. that they should be paid for this service by recycling tax revenues. The dialogue (carried out through local fora) should aim to establish agreement as to c. what would be the features of the traditional landscapes, which required active management by farmers or land-owners and d. what level of remuneration would be reasonable for carrying out these activities. The cost of running the fora should be covered by the EU Structural Funds. 

***

Proposal 3.2 for extending the scope of agri-environmental measures  (CON2) 

ooo Summary: Agri-environmental measures have mostly been targeted at special areas and habitats. Here I propose (Proposal CON 2) that these measures are extended to cover all farmland wherever farmers after consulting local people wish to restore, recreate or protect habitats  ooo

Context - Biodiversity and habitat diversity have been undermined by the CAP. More recently the introduction of agri-environmental schemes (such as the establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, etc.) have paid farmers to undertake more environmentally sensitive farming practices. Maintaining biodiversity is considered to have an intrinsic benefit as species diversity offers some insurance against plant and animal epidemics (by for example allowing the possibility of developing hybrids with old resistant cultivars, and by allowing biological control of pests). In addition promoting the diversity of wildlife is again of benefit to citizens who wish to enjoy nature and to the tourist industry. Most agri-environmental measures focus on areas which have particular significance for biodiversity. Areas which are not considered to be special, in particular areas of high productivity in river basins near centres of population, are often not covered by these schemes. However historically these areas used to provide a rich range of habitats for a wide diversity of species. Many of these used to be seen as “common species”, such as the “house sparrow” in England, but are now becoming rare. This proposal is aimed at restoring habitat diversity in more favoured agricultural areas.

Reasons for proposing support - Favoured areas of agricultural production (particularly cereal growing areas) have been simplified by the removal of landscape features such as hedges, small woods, water meadows, and ponds. By simplifying the landscape and vastly increasing the size of fields farmers have been able to maintain their competitivity with respect to the most “efficient” producers of commodity crops in the world (e.g. the US mid-West). The removal of habitats has however led to significant losses of wildlife, in particular to the loss of “song birds”. Some of these species, once common, have become rare. Although some wildlife damages crops and are therefore seen by farmers as being pests, others have beneficial effects, particularly in reducing damage to crops by insects. Maintaining a healthy balance between a diversity of species can reduce the need for agrochemical interventions, when they are managed so as to achieve biological control.

Who would be eligible? - All farmland which is not covered by existing agri-environmental schemes, but, in particular favoured farming areas where intensive approaches to cereal production are currently the norm.

Conditions of support - Farmers would be required to draw up “whole farm plans” working with environmental NGOs and national environmental agencies, aimed at reintroducing landscape features where they have been largely removed in the last fifty years. These plans should be drawn up in such a way as to maximise the benefits to be gained from biological control. Local communities (within walking distance) should have opportunities to comment on these plans and they should be given limited access by footpath to some of the restored landscape features. Farms participating in the scheme should be required to adopt either organic farming techniques or the most environmentally friendly approaches to integrated crop management available to them.

Levels of support - Farmers should be paid for the costs of reintroducing landscape features (i.e. reimbursement of their own time spent in planning; payment of consultants fees where specialist advice is necessary; labour time involved in digging ponds, planting hedges, etc.; cost of materials, such as the purchase of  saplings etc.). These payments should cover the set up costs and pay the farmer for his time and effort. Once the features were established, farmers should be paid on-going compensation payments. These payments should be pro rata payments based on the hectarage of land taken out of production The level of payments should cover the on-going costs of maintaining the features (e.g. hedge-cutting) plus an additional figure corresponding to the average profit which a farmer would have expected to gain if the land had remained in production plus an additional 10%.

Source of financial support - Expansion of the agri-environmental budget of the CAP.

Appropriate areas - Any areas not covered by existing agri-environmental programmes, in particular areas of high productivity where the emphasis in recent years has been on maximising productivity to the detriment of landscape features and biodiversity.
Accompanying measures - This proposal could itself act as an accompanying measure to other proposals, most notably Proposal CON 5.

Mechanism - Consultations between farmers, agronomists, Environment and Agriculture Ministry officials and concerned environmental NGOs (e.g. Birdlife International, WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group, etc.) in drawing up whole farm plans. Exposure of Whole Farm Plans to adjoining village communities to negotiate limited access. NOTE: A number of schemes have already emerged in the UK which attempt to take this kind of approach e.g. the Countryside Access Scheme and the Woodland Management Scheme. The intention of this proposal would be to draw these schemes together, integrate them in a whole farm management plan and provide opportunities for consultation with local citizens at the “Parish level”.

***

Proposal 3.3 for Management of Water Catchments (CON3) 

ooo Summary: This proposal (Proposal CON 3) aims to provide a mechanism whereby citizens and special interest groups can work together to develop more comprehensive water catchment management plans, mobilising communities throughout water catchments to regain control over this most vital feature of the local environment ooo

Context for this proposal - In many European landscapes, farmland (particularly water-meadows) have offered protection against flooding. In recent years, the CAP has encouraged the engineering of rivers to maximise drainage and farmers have been encouraged to drain marshy areas and wetlands. This has led to an increase in downstream flooding instances in wet seasons and to drought problems in dry seasons (as the wetlands no longer act as a store for moisture, released slowly downstream during dry periods). It has also led to the destruction of freshwater aquatic habitats, loss of biodiversity and problems with water quality. Potentially the old function of agricultural enterprises and river systems working together to optimise water flows and quality could be restored. This would enhance the attractiveness of river basins to tourists, benefit householders living in areas which are currently prone to flood and benefit the insurance industry (by reducing the bills for insurance claims after flooding).

Reasons for proposing support - The EU already requires Environment Agencies to draw up and execute plans for managing water catchments. Environment Agencies are also required to consult with local communities over these plans. However they have limited budgets to do this and the consultations undertaken are frequently minimal and ineffectual. In some cases the spirit in which consultations are carried out reflects the need for bureaucrats to fulfil statutory requirements (i.e. they must be seen to have consulted), rather than a genuine commitment to allowing the various stakeholders in river systems to have their say. River systems are one of the most important environmental features and most citizens have a view about drinking water quality and about the quality of river water itself. In many European rivers, oxygen levels are depressed and biological activity is well below acceptable standards. There are many stakeholders in river systems: farmers and riparian land-owners, walkers, fishermen, boat owners, waterside restaurants and bars, consumers of water (i.e. all local people), and water supply companies (whose expenses are greater because of poor water quality prior to purification). Different stakeholders in the river systems have different interests and concerns. There are real opportunities to improve the overall management of water catchments by achieving synergistic solutions, which cater to the needs of different stakeholders. However, all too frequently, the different stakeholders have no way of communicating their points of view to each other and arriving at compromise solutions. (For example farmers want good drainage and the engineering of rivers plus the right to remove water for irrigation. These approaches destroy spawning grounds for fish and make rivers too sluggish to support life. Fishermen on the other hand want diverse freshwater habitats and spawning grounds for fish. In many river systems there is no way that these two constituencies can meet to arrive at shared and creative solutions which will meet both their needs. To give another example: water companies spend large amounts of money removing pollutants caused by poor farming practices; cooperation between farmers and water companies can reduce overall costs and environmental impacts) There is a need to set up a mechanism whereby all stakeholders have the opportunity to express their points of view and meet to develop synergistic solutions. A river system may be over a thousand kilometres long or more from source to estuary. There is therefore also a geographical problem in achieving communication between stakeholders at different points along the river. This accounts for the precise nature of the proposal below, which entails the creative use of web sites.

Who would be eligible? - NGOs or groups of NGOs who have a track record of working on environmental matters and facilitating stakeholder dialogues. 

Conditions of support - NGOs or coalitions of NGOs would receive support to set up stakeholder dialogues throughout water catchments. These dialogues would involve all the stakeholders who had an interest in the river system. The NGO would establish a website, dedicated to the water catchment. This would provide information about the way the river system worked, points of difficulty or concern (poor water quality and flow for example, downstream flooding risks, etc.), and on-line fora to discuss cooperative solutions between actors or stakeholders operating at different points in the catchment (for example farmers in flood planes can help reduce flooding incidents downstream). The on-line fora would be supplemented by face-to-face meetings at key points in the dialogue. The NGO or NGO coalition would also be responsible for publicising the web debates and the results of stakeholder meetings through local press and media, so that citizens without internet access are not denied the opportunity to participate.

Levels of support - This would vary according to the river catchment involved. For example, consultations in a small river catchment (such as the River Yare catchment in Norfolk, UK) would require only two full time workers and associated expenses to manage this process of consultation. A massive river like the Rhine or the Danube would require a number of facilitators to work at different points along the course of the rivers (with, for example, at a minimum of two facilitators for each country through which the river flows and a team of at least three people to run the web site.) In-team translators would clearly be vital for such a project where the river flowed through several countries with different national languages. 

Source of financial support - Regional funds from the EU’s Structural Funds (RDR)

Appropriate areas - All river systems or water catchments in the EU

Accompanying measures - The stakeholder dialogues and consultations would lead to the identification of synergistic solutions to problems in the water catchments. These would lead to specific action plans on water quality, water flows, freshwater habitat protection or development, flood control policies involving farmland etc. Each of these would bring with them the need to pay for new services. For example, if farmers were to help in flood control management by abandoning arable production adjacent to rivers, and reintroducing mixed farming, with water meadows and cattle along river banks, they would have to be paid to make these changes. In many cases farmers no longer have buildings for stock, having been encouraged by the old CAP to specialise in arable production. Modifying their farming systems in these cases would clearly be expensive. However the long term implications of reducing downstream flooding in towns and cities could well make such a policy economic overall. A variety of measures and sources of funding could help to make such changes. Municipal authorities in towns prone to flooding and private insurance companies, for example, might be prepared to meet part of the costs of changing the overall management of a river system in preference to spending large amounts of money on “hard flood defences” i.e. engineering solutions (many of which have failed recently).

Mechanism - The mechanism for consultation involving a web site for the catchment, on-line discussions and periodic face to face meetings is described in 4 above.

***

Proposal 3.4 for Managing the EU's energy balance and carbon balance (CON4)

ooo Summary: This proposal (Proposal CON4) provides a mechanism for allowing the EU to use agricultural land to achieve an equitable carbon balance  ooo

Context for this proposal - The countryside already contributes a small percentage of renewable energy to meet the EU's demands for energy, in the form of wood, composting systems, wind power and to a lesser extent through bio-fuels. The EU needs to reduce its levels of CO2 emissions to comply with the Kyoto protocol (notwithstanding the present US rejection of the protocol). There are also strategic benefits from reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels. Re-establishing woodlands would allow the EU to improve its carbon balance in the short term by developing "carbon sinks". In the longer term sustainable management of diverse woodlands would allow much of the continent's electric power to be derived from burning wood - a process which is neutral in terms of the carbon cycle (as old trees are burned, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, young trees are absorbing CO2 at the same rate from the atmosphere through photosynthesis),

Reasons for proposing support - It is now generally accepted that global warning is going to lead to immense problems (for example the displacement of about 20 million Bangladeshis within 10 years in a country which is already over-populated). There is a need to undertake radical action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The Kyoto protocol is inadequate to deal with the scale of the problem but the US has refused to sign up even to this very modest agreement. The reaction of the global community to global warming is characteristic of its reaction to a great many problems. On the one hand it is acknowledged that we face very serious problems. On the other hand we are simply not prepared to deal with them. In the case of global warming, much of the developing world, including China is not happy with the Kyoto agreement. Under this agreement, every country is supposed to reduce its levels of emissions. However the European Union already releases very high levels of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per capita compared to China, for example. The US is, of course, a much greater offender in this respect than the EU. Developing countries ask why they should be prevented from increasing their emissions when developed countries will be allowed to continue polluting at a much higher level than developing countries will ever attain. The only way to get China and other developing countries to become enthusiastic about the protocol (and therefore to challenge the US position) is for the EU to agree to set a much more radical (and more equitable in global terms) target for reducing emissions in future. The aim should be for EU citizens to have the right to consume a limited amount of carbon based fuels based on a simple formula: Total current world production of carbon dioxide emissions/ world population. Beyond this EU citizens should provide (through appropriate taxes) mechanisms for removing excess carbon dioxide emissions. The only practical way of doing this is through the planting of forests, which act as carbon sinks (removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow).

Who would be eligible? - Farmers and landowners

Conditions of support -  Farmers would be paid to plant woodland, to act as a carbon sink. These should be mixed woodland, using indigenous species and they should be integrated into the landscape in a way which does not detract from its touristic value. In the long term, mixed woodland should yield high value timber for construction, furniture making, etc. as well as off-cuts (and thinnings) which can be burned in power stations

Levels of support - In former years, when farmers thought that their descendants would stay on the land, farmers often planted trees. They knew that the woodland they created would have no commercial or other value for 30, 40 or even 50 years, but they knew that it would provide income or useful timber for their descendants at some time. Farmers today are much less certain of the future and are less inclined to invest in the future. The financial support provided under this proposal would have to be arranged so as to provide farmers with incomes in the transitional periods as woodland became established. The lead in time before woodland can yield an income can be reduced by supplementing long term plantings with short rotation coppice in order to yield transitional incomes, derived from selling wood chips to power stations (see 8. below). Once woodlands are well-established, their sustainable management should ensure a long-term income for farmers and land-owners. The support in this proposal is therefore envisioned as being short term. Currently a timber-fed electricity generating station cannot compete with cheap fossil fuel based generators. However in the longer term as carbon based fuels become scarcer (and by the time that woodlands have reached maturity), they will be able to compete in open energy markets.

Source of financial support - Environmental NGOs often call for higher taxes on fuel (for cars). The problem with this approach is that it penalises the poor and has little impact on the consumption patterns of the rich (as they can easily afford to pay a bit more for petrol and therefore do not reduce their use of automobiles). In particular it penalises the rural poor who have to travel long distances for basic services. In many parts of the EU the use of cars to go to work, to take children to school and to get the weekly shopping is virtually unavoidable. An alternative approach would to be to set differential road taxes for vehicles, according to their consumption of petrol or diesel per kilometre. The differentials should be great, with a vehicle a low fuel consumption paying, for example, 100 Euros per year and a vehicle with high consumption (few kilometres per litre) paying a very high tax, for example 1000 (or even 10,000 for the most fuel inefficient classes of vehicles!) Euros per year. This would encourage citizens to use more fuel efficient vehicles but would not deny poorer people, particularly poor rural people access to essential transport where public transport systems are not and cannot easily be established. The basic taxes on fuel could remain unchanged and vehicles which used carbon neutral fuels (such as biofuels) would pay the lowest level of vehicle tax regardless of engine size. The extra revenue generated could be used to finance the establishment of more woodland. Ideally the level of extra tax paid should balance the cost of excess fuel consumption (i.e. if you choose to buy a large, fast car which uses unnecessary amounts of fuel, and therefore generates unnecessary emissions of carbon dioxide, you sponsor the establishment of carbon sinks i.e. woodland, which will exactly remove the excess CO2 generated.) The extra tax could be imposed immediately for new cars but would need to be imposed progressively over a period of time for old cars, in order to avoid penalising poor people with large old cars.

Appropriate areas - In particular mountainous and marginal areas, after consultation with local populations and tourist industries. [Areas which were polluted as a result of the Chernobyl melt-down may be usable as a carbon sink (although care would have to be taken in the long term to retrieve radioactive materials from the emissions if the resulting wood was burned in power stations).]

Accompanying measures - Development of wood burning power stations to generate electricity, as woodland becomes useable. A mix of approaches to establishing woodland can be used in order to bring forward the construction and use of power stations. “Short rotation coppice” of species like willow or hazel provide burnable biomass (in the form of wood chips) within about 5 years of planting. Plantings of other species which yield over longer periods can replace “short rotation coppice” in subsequent periods, giving a continuity of supply to the power stations, once they are established. Additional support could be provided for the establishment of wind turbines and other renewable energy sources with a view to establishing better on-going energy balances and carbon balances. Low vehicle taxes of vehicles which used bio-fuels could provide opportunities to develop the bio-fuel sector.

Mechanism - Approval of such a radical policy as this would need to be put before the EU electorate.

***

Proposal 3.5 for landscape conservation/recreation close to urban centres (CON5)

ooo Summary: This proposal (Proposal CON 5) simultaneously provides spaces for recreation and “unwinding” for citizens who live in urban areas (particularly for the excluded and poorer sections of society who cannot afford expensive “weekend breaks” in remote rural areas) and allows farmers to escape from the “treadmill” of commodity production for depressed global markets ooo

Context for this proposal - Health and social stability. Modern city life can be highly stressful. Many citizens rely on the tranquillity of the countryside to "unwind" and to "recharge their batteries". In some cases, entrepreneurs have formalised the delivery of therapeutic services by setting up health spas, clinics or other services in the countryside, aimed at particular social groups. While these entrepreneurs are paid for by their clients or in some cases by the state, the managers of the countryside who provide the context or setting for these enterprises do not receive any direct benefits. The potential therapeutic effects of a tranquil countryside, whether enjoyed informally by a visit or formally by attending a clinic almost certainly enhances mental and psychological health and contributes to social stability in stressful urban centres. The people who live in the least pleasant parts of cities tend to be the poor, the unemployed and the excluded. They, more than other city dwellers, probably have the greatest need to periodically escape from the city. However, they often cannot afford to pay for travel to distant rural areas and overnight accommodation.
Many rural areas, close to urban centres (e.g. parts of the Paris and London Basins) have fertile soils, which have traditionally been associated with high levels of cereal production. As they have industrialised in the post-war periods, farms have become increasingly mechanised and have operated at larger scales. To facilitate industrialisation, many features have been destroyed in many areas, producing uniform and featureless landscapes. As food production and distribution have become globalised, the links between cities and the surrounding countryside have often become very weak. Farmers are driven by market pressures to adopt ever more brutal approaches to land management. Meanwhile the urban population, formerly the farmers’ clients, see the countryside around the cities becoming ever less attractive. The purpose of the support in this proposal is to provide mechanisms, whereby urban dwellers can reconnect with the countryside around the cities, giving them easy access by public transport (ideally by rail) to rural areas and laying the foundations for the development of direct marketing of rural products to urban communities. Providing ways for city dwellers to leave stressful cities easily is likely to have psychological benefits to city dwellers and also benefit to its social fabric.

Reasons for proposing support - Farms near urban centres which produce agricultural raw materials for depressed global commodity markets are not taking advantage of the economic opportunities available to them. Commodity producers employ ever fewer people, leading to low levels of rural employment. Houses become increasingly occupied by commuters and rural communities and services go into decline. The kind of landscape and communities which result from large-scale commodity production are usually hostile to urban dwellers. They tend to travel further to visit the countryside in less industrialised areas of production. This increases fuel use, pressure on transport networks, pollution and stress. Helping farmers to provide a different kind of service to local urban communities – places where they can go for a walk, and visit a restaurant or bar before returning by train to the city – could allow some farms to become more profitable, employ more people and encourage the development of independent small businesses in rural areas around cities.

Who would be eligible? - Farmers within half an hour’s travel time from the edge of cities and large towns. It must be stressed that a scheme of this nature would as yet appeal only to a minority of farmers and the proposal is to offer an alternative option to farmers to change the nature of their businesses.

Conditions of support - Farmers would have to engage in a dialogue with city dwellers, negotiating with them the payments to maintain or re-create agricultural systems, in ways which would make them welcoming and attractive to city dwellers. Farmers would have to provide good access to visitors, including some access for disabled people. Farmers near railway stations could be favoured. Public transport would need to be provided between railway stations and the farms. Access to participating farms should be free, with the costs born by city revenues, so that the poor and unemployed would not be denied essential opportunities to escape uncongenial urban environments.

Levels of support - To be negotiated between city residents and a farmer or group of farmers. A farmer could continue to farm largely as before, but with the addition of a few landscape features (hedges, ponds, woods, water-meadows) and better access to the public (footpaths, bridleways and disabled access). In this case the payments made by the city would be fairly modest. Another farm might decide to undertake much more radical changes (e.g. reintroduction of mixed farming systems, organic conversion, high value crops for direct sales to the urban community, etc.) In this case a city could decide to sponsor the conversion costs and transitional periods with more generous support. 

Source of financial support - Local tax revenue raised by the city or town, co-financed with structural funds.

Appropriate areas - Primarily around major cities and towns or in highly populated conurbations.

Accompanying measures - Municipal authorities should ideally subsidise public transport to the farms. They should be able to negotiate very favourable terms with railway companies, as visits to the country would often entail the use of empty commuter trains, returning to the outlying areas to pick up more commuters. With more urban people visiting the country, new marketing approaches for locally produced fruit, vegetables, meats and value-added products are likely to emerge. New small-scale enterprises could be encouraged by rural development grants. Urban citizens could also be offered individual shares in new enterprises, increasing their sense of commitment to the local countryside. Alternatively city authorities could invest on behalf of citizens. A series of food scares has made organic production increasingly attractive to city dwellers. Development of more direct sales of organic produce could be encouraged as an adjunct to this scheme.

Mechanism - EU support for the development of dialogues between cities and their adjacent countryside, focussing on the following questions: what do city dwellers want from the surrounding countryside; how much are they prepared collectively to pay for new services. The emphasis should be on free access rather than on access for a fee, as classic “farm attractions” exclude poor city dwellers. Classic attractions also already have opportunities to develop in the free market.

***

Proposal 3.6 for integrated waste management (CON6)

ooo Summary: This proposal (Proposal CON 6)  supports approaches to waste management which would simultaneously dispose of urban waste and allow soil fertility to be rebuilt  ooo

Context for this proposal - Waste materials, such as sewage sludge and other organic material, are applied to the land. Soil organisms have a capacity to break down and recycle waste products. Care needs to be taken to avoid damaging soils (by for example building up high levels of heavy metals). When properly arranged, the countryside can function as a disposer of waste for urban communities and, at the same time, use this waste to build up soil fertility. Urban centres produce enormous amounts of waste. Much of this is disposed of in the countryside but this is often carried out without delivering any benefit to the countryside. Cereal farms near cities often have depleted soils with low organic matter contents (below the 2% minimum required to retain good soil structure and functioning). If urban citizens are prepared to sort their waste, the organic material they throw away could be recycled through composting to rebuild damaged soils. Some materials could also be burnt in electricity generating stations and nutrients from human sewage could also be reclaimed through the use of osier and comfrey beds. 

Reasons for proposing support - Currently nutrients are being wasted and landfill sites are becoming increasingly hard to find. Disposal of waste in landfill sites also endangers water quality and public health.

Who would be eligible? - Citizens who were prepared to sort waste to high standards would receive a rebate on their local taxes. Farmers and landowners, who set up recycling systems around towns and cities would receive support for set up costs and be paid to run composting plants and osier beds. Farmers could be involved in a number of complementary schemes, including those described in Proposals CON 5 and 10. Farmers, downstream of cities, could develop osier and comfrey beds to recapture nutrients from sewage. Osiers can be burnt in generating stations and have other uses. Comfrey can be easily converted into "liquid manure" for organic farming systems.

Conditions of support - Participating farmers and landowners would have to apply effective and efficient recycling methods. Citizens who participated and who received local tax rebates, would have to accept the possibility of periodic spot checks, on their waste disposal practices.

Levels of support - Set up costs plus appropriate remuneration for the on-going work involved in recycling. Citizens would receive local tax rebates, which were sufficient to provide incentives for them to co-operate. (To put the matter the other way round: people who were not prepared to help to deal with their own waste, would pay more local tax to cover the long-term environmental costs of cruder systems of waste disposal)

Source of financial support - Structural Funds for set up costs and, at least initially, for compensating municipalities for the increased costs involved. On-going payments to farmers and other participants should be paid for by the municipal authorities (local taxes).

Appropriate Areas - Farms close to towns and cities.

Accompanying measures - Support for the establishment of small-scale electricity generating plants around cities for material which could be safely burned but not composted or reclaimed.

Mechanism - Negotiation between farmers and local city or town authorities. Vote by city population, as to whether or not they wanted collectively to participate. NOTE: Schemes like this already exist in some EU cities (particularly for recycling organic wastes from public park, leaves from city trees, etc.)

***

Proposal 3.7 Recycling revenue from environmentally damaging recreation (CON7)

ooo   Summary:   This proposal (Proposal CON 7) aims at using tax revenue, raised from rural pursuits which are environmentally damaging, to support rural pursuits which are environmentally friendly ooo

Context for this proposal - Citizens pursue a number of recreations and sports in the countryside including walking, cycling, canoeing, horse-riding, fishing and hunting. Some of these may directly benefit farmers and landowners (such as hunting). Others, like walking and horse-riding, may benefit some individual entrepreneurs (e.g. owners of riding stables) but are largely parasitic on the farming community (whose lands they cross and enjoy but to whom they provide no financial support - indeed it is the responsibility of landowners to maintain footpaths and bridle-ways at their own expense, meaning that, far from being paid for their work, they actually have to subsidise these activities).
Other forms of recreation occur in the countryside, which are environmentally damaging in various ways, the most obvious cases being any form of racing of motorised vehicles, particularly over rough terrain or on inland waterways. Typically these activities create noise and exhaust fumes, often destroying the terrain and they use considerable quantities of fossil fuels. These activities often generate high incomes for participants and owners of facilities, which in turn provide states with tax revenue.

Reasons for proposing support - Sports carried out in the countryside often provide few benefits to local communities. In fact, from the point of view of rural communities, they are often merely disruptive, especially when they involve events which use motorised vehicles of any kind. The intention of this proposal is to recycle 50% of the tax revenue gained from these (often highly profitable) disruptive events as grants to local communities, so that they receive a benefit and can use the revenue for collectively agreed goals.

Who would be eligible? - Villages and rural communities within 15 kilometres of sites where motorised racing events occur frequently (but excluding long distance events, which produce a very limited period of disruption over very large areas).

Conditions of support - Farmers, landowners and village councils should use the tax revenue to enhance their local environment to compensate for the environmental nuisance entailed. The aim should be to enhance the attractiveness of other less disruptive rural pursuits in the area, such as walking, horse-riding and canoeing. Facilities for these could be sponsored to encourage young people to take an interest in these more healthy types of pursuits as well as or instead of motor sports.

Levels of support - 50% of tax revenues, which can be directly attributable to the running of motorised or other disruptive events, staged in the countryside would be paid into a regional fund. Local people or communities could apply to use these funds for the purposes outlined in 4. above.

Source of financial support - Recylcing of tax revenues (local business taxes and national income tax.) Cofinancing from the structural funds.

Appropriate areas - Areas near to locations where environmentally disruptive sporting events are carried out. 

Accompanying measures - Cheap access to non-disruptive recreation in the countryside could also be provided from the regional funds, targetted and organised by urban schools (see also Proposal CON 10)

Mechanism - Regional referenda to decide whether or not the principle of recycling taxes in this way was fair. Community consultation in relevant areas, focussing on the question of whether a local community believed it would benefit from this approach and if so, what it would like to do with the funding available through the regional fund.

***

Proposal 3.8 for financial support for the promotion of healthy diets (CON8)

ooo   Summary: This proposal (Proposal CON 8) lays the foundation for imposing taxes on unhealthy foods and providing financial support for marketing healthy products  ooo

Context for this proposal - Promotion of healthy diets. Farming has been under pressure to minimise costs and to produce for mass markets, which are heavily influenced by marketing campaigns. Farmers who try to hold out against these pressures by producing high quality, healthy products, such as organic foods have to bare the cost of counteracting such marketing. To the extent that they are successful, they contribute to the health of EU citizens. 
The increasing domination of life by corporate capitalism has a strong effect on the lives of citizens. Advertising in the food market aggressively promotes prepared foods, which often have high fat, salt and sugar contents. These are designed to stimulate the taste buds and capture the market, focussing particularly on children and young people. There are already signs that early habituation to poor quality foods of this nature have negative implications for public health (for example causing hyperactivity in children and obesity in later life).
Much of the advertising is fundamentally misleading and cynical. However, any attempt to control advertising is likely to lead to complaints that civil liberties (of the food companies) are being infringed. Nevertheless, citizens should at least have the right to challenge the fundamental human right (??)of corporation men to cynically recruit new generations of customers. The restrictions of advertising on tobacco show that it is possible to stand up to corporate interests in this way.
A less contentious option is the provision of more support to those who wish to educate consumers into healthier life style choices. 

Reasons for proposing support - Advertising of convenience foods and fast foods encourage people (particularly youth) to adopt what appear to be unhealthy diets. Producers of "high quality foods", such as organic foods believe that their products are safer and better for human health. However there is little scientific evidence available to support or to refute such beliefs, which are increasingly shared by larger numbers of EU citizens. There is a need for more publicly funded research to establish whether or not claims of this kind are true. If they are then there should be additional help for marketing healthier foods and more controls on the promotion of unhealthy foods (or alternatively additional taxes on these foods which can be recycled into the provision of health care to deal with the long term health costs).

Who would be eligible? - Groups of producers, food processors and marketing organisations which genuinely attempt to promote or develop safer and more wholesome foods (particularly those involved in organic food) together with suitably qualified research organisations, interested in investigating the health implications of different diets.

Conditions of support - Participating producers would have to cooperate with researchers to test their claims for additional health benefits of particular foods, or ways of growing or preparing them. Once the research was done, subsequent advertising campaigns by producers and traders should be consistent with the scientific results (i.e. no false or misleading claims should be made).

Levels of support - National funds should be set up to sponsor scientific research of this nature. The level of funding for research should correspond to at least 5% of the national tax revenue gained through taxing the profits of companies which market convenience foods.

Source of financial support - Recycled tax revenue

Appropriate areas - All areas

Accompanying measures - Governments should encourage national debates on whether or not restrictions should be imposed on misleading advertising of convenience foods and fast food chains (and whether the use of promotional gifts to attract children should be prohibited.

Mechanism - National Dialogues about advertising standards. Establishment of research funds. Applications for funding for research by interested groups, co-operatives or consortia.

***

Proposal 3.9 Support for distinctive regional food cultures (CON9)

ooo Summary: This proposal (Proposal CON 9) aims to support the promotion of foods associated with distinctive regional and cultural identities  ooo

Context for this proposal - producers of specialist foods associated with particular European cultural traditions, have to educate the public and promote their products in order to survive in competitive markets. While these activities are undertaken in order to ensure the survival of their own enterprises, they are at the same time acting as promoters of particular food cultures and, as food has traditionally played such an important role in different national and regional identities, in perpetuating wider national or regional cultures. 

Reasons for proposing support - In recent years, producers outside the regions which originally developed these foods have attempted to replace regional foods with their own products (which imitate the original), often produced to lower standards and undermining the ability of regional foods to control quality standards. The result of this has been to threaten the distinctive farming systems and associated cultures which produced the original foods.

Who would be eligible? - Farmers and food processors in the regions which originally produced the culturally distinct foods.

Conditions of support - Farmers would have to maintain the distinctive regional approaches to food production, and ideally return to organic approaches which characterised the original tradition of food production, so as to regain the competitive edge in terms of quality relative to new producers outside the region.

Levels of support – Maintenance or slight enhancement of producers' incomes during transitions to organic production. Help with marketing.

Source of financial support - Regional Development Funds.

Appropriate areas - Regions with distinctive food traditions.

Accompanying measures - Support for cultural festivals associated with food traditions. Support at WTO for retention of the principles of regional labelling (e.g. apellation controlle). Challenges at international level to piracy of intellectual property.

Mechanism - Consultation with producers in regions.

***

Proposal 3.10 for support for Educational projects on farm (CON10)

ooo  Summary: Proposal (CON 10) for support for Educational projects on farms ooo

Context for this proposal - Life in cities is so insulated from nature that it is easy for city dwellers to forget that even cities rely on maintaining workable balances with nature in order to survive. Farms potentially can help to educate urban dwellers about these balances and hence make a contribution to the overall sustainability of urban societies.

Reasons for proposing support - Young citizens need to understand the principles of sustainability if the future viability of EU societies is to be ensured. Farms are a microcosm covering many areas which are relevant to sustainable development, including food production, energy production and consumption, waste management, social relations, etc.

Who would be eligible? - Farmers, particularly those close to urban centres, who used sustainable methods (see Dossier of Sustainable Production Systems).

Conditions of support - Farmers would have to be able to demonstrate principles of sustainable production in their own farming systems. Farms with diverse systems, able to illustrate a wider variety of themes would be favoured.

Levels of support - Set up costs to be provided by local educational authorities (co-financed by structural funds). Payments to be negotiated between educational authorities and service providers (farmers).

Source of financial support - Set up costs of converting buildings and developing educational materials to be provided from the education budget, co-financed from the structural funds. Payments for visits by education authorities or schools (depending on national systems for funding education) would provide on-going income for farmers.

Appropriate areas - Particularly farms close to urban centres (see also Proposal CON 5) 

Accompanying measures - Development of school curricula to include a stronger emphasis on sustainable development.

Mechanism - Negotiations between educational authorities and farmers who would like to join the scheme

***

Proposal 3.11 Conditioning European aid to the maintenance of paths

Problem - The support given to agriculture has been partially justified for a long period by its role in territorial development and maintenance. It was a postulate. However, aid linked to efforts to concretize this territorial development are rare and no criteria have been established to evaluate this service to the community. Unfortunately, the facts show that the agriculture that has received the most aid has destroyed the most paths (such as cereal production), whereas the most environmentally respectful types of farming have been penalized exactly because of their respect. Lastly, if agriculture is to play a role in development, whom does it benefit? In what way can the entire community benefit from territorial development?
One of the roles expected from the territory thus “developed” is for it to provide a space for walking and leisure. How can this role be ensured?  

Proposal - The best measure of a territory’s openness is the distance taken by paths per hectare! It is sufficient to measure the number of miles of paths (private and public but nonetheless open to the public) which cross it. Of course, by path is meant a thoroughfare in good condition, though not asphalted, with a minimum width of 3 meters. To give an idea, on a relatively open farm in the Ile de France region (an outer urban zone subject to strong demands for leisure) nearly 35 meters of path per hectare were calculated, i.e. 3.5 kilometers for a hundred hectares. With the exception of areas under ecological preservation orders for which public access is limited, entitlement to public aid should carry the proviso for a minimum of 20 meters of path per hectare.

Comment - As in European cities, where increasing consideration is given to converting roads for traffic into pedestrian walkways, a large proportion of the paths running through rural Europe has disappeared due to covering over with asphalt or by regrouping lands. Any discourse on revitalizing rural areas (children dare to go school less and less by foot) or on their cultural role is hollow if no real attempt is made to restore a network of paths not intended for cars.

Implementation - this measure would benefit from massive support from territorial authorities, professionals in the tourist industry, hikers’ and bicyclists’ associations and many farmers who already keep their land open at their own cost. This could become an integral part of the Common Agricultural Policy in the same way as ecological compensation areas are part of the current Swiss law on farming. 

***

4. The EU and other countries 

Implementing a rural policy in the EU implies consequences for non-EU countries. From the standpoint of EU rural policies, countries can be classified into six categories:
•	Firstly, there are the countries that already belong to the EU and which want to preserve or reform the current situation which has an impact on their economies. However they all currently have the same target which is to pay less. Extending the CAP to Central and Eastern European countries does not appear to be an option since it would be in contradiction with the aim mentioned previously.   
•	Secondly, the countries which will become Union members in the near future. These are essentially the Central and Eastern European countries. The question for them is to know whether the current members of the EU will ask them to accept the benefits of community membership with certain adaptations or whether enlargement will be conceived as the union among equals of two brutally divided Europes. Enlargement or reunification, that is the question.
•	Neighboring countries, especially Mediterranean ones, who may fear that the union of the East and West will put them on the spot.
•	The agricultural powers, in particular the Cairns Group of Canada, New-Zealand, Argentina, Thailand, etc.) and the USA which fears a return to European protectionism.
•	Other trading partners which, as a function of specific contracts (as with the case of bananas), can follow such and such an aspect of European policy. 
•	Lastly, a group with few agricultural trading relationships but which may observe Europe's position with interest, since it reflects their own problems (e.g., Japan).

The most sensitive issue at present is that of enlargement. It has been ten years since the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, but membership of the EU is postponed year after year, changing initial enthusiasm to disillusion. The major reasons for this slowness are the EU's agricultural and structural funds (regional development funds) policies. 
•	Half of the EU's budget is taken up by its agricultural policy, which will be affected by any enlargement. Its cost will increase by 10 million Euros if it is maintained as it is and extended to the new members. However, the net contributing countries (those which give more than they receive, i.e. the Netherlands and Germany) no longer want to pay. As for the other countries, they go as far as refusing to contribute ("I Want my money back"). The suggestion has been made to enlarge Europe without extending the CAP, though this proposal is ludicrous. Agriculture and the rural economy in general are still a basic component of the economy and thus of social harmony in countries such as Poland and Romania. For them, opening up their borders to subsidized agricultural produce without having the means to subsidize their own would lead to economic and social disaster with dire consequences.
•	The main beneficiaries of the structural funds are most Spain, Greece and Portugal which all fear the rerouting of the funds they receive to the East.

To sum up, those who pay do not want to pay more, whereas those who benefit from community aid do not want any of it to slip away.

However, the debate does not stop there. Since the debate on the nature of Europe (will it become simply a single market, a confederation or a federation?) will decide the nature of the policies formulated. Will there be a European rural policy? Or will each State, region or municipality be individually responsible for the choices it makes in terms of projects and economic development?

If the Union's members continue to refuse raising the agriculture budget, thinking must take a different direction:
4.1	Give precedence to political union rather than to economic union.
4.2	Develop a common rural policy intended for every State whatever their duration of membership.
4.3	Develop tools guaranteeing financial transparency to permit the constitution of a European civil society. 
4.4	Ensure food security, since food remains a major strategic issue (more than economic).

Proposal 4.1- Political union before economic union 

Context and reason - Historically, the construction of the European Union has been based on economic union that has taken precedence over political union. This approach was a last resort for Europe's founding fathers in the face of stubborn refusal by States to give up any of their sovereignty. Germany has now raised the question of a federal Europe, spurring a response for project for a confederal Europe. However, in 1950 the idea of political union was practically unmentionable (and still is for certain countries). This 'historical necessity' of giving precedence to economic union over political union has become a routine rule now applied in the case of union with the countries of the East: economic union first. However, the divergence between their economies is such that convergence can only be achieved by long term efforts (several decades). The recent example of German reunification has shown that brutal economic union is a traumatizing experience, even when huge resources are brought into play. This strictly economic vision of the union leads to the regular postponement of these countries joining up, in turn leading to considerable bitterness. It is paradoxical that at a time when a large core of fifteen countries becomes aware of the need to politicize their economic union they should subordinate political union with the east to economic union.
 
However, history abounds with cases in which political union has preceded economic union. France, Great Britain, Spain, the Polish-Lithuanian Kingdom, etc. are all political entities whose formation preceded economic union. The relationship between Western and Easter Europe has nothing to do, for example, with the integration of Great Britain into the Common Market in 1979. It is first and foremost the political and cultural reunion of the continent, even if economic convergence must occur in time. Therefore it is necessary to act now without waiting for political union (whether in the form of federation or a confederation) with economic union occurring in this framework and through time.

Mechanism - Europe must accelerate its political union while maintaining temporary internal economic borders, which will fall progressively. Thus the representatives of all the countries will be led to speak out on the policies and decisions to be made (for example, a new rural policy, new procedures for financing the union, new water protection standards, a common position at international level, etc.). The fifteen current members would conserve the advantages that will change progressively through time. Economic convergence (lowering of customs barriers, convergence of standards, the benefits of exiting policies) would occur in harmony according to the principle of trading the disappearance customs barriers against the disappearance of subsidies.  

Implementation - The forthcoming legislatures of the European Parliament should bring together parliamentarians from every European country. The balance of commissioners should remain the same for one more legislature before setting up a commission elected by parliament in the same way as the Swiss federal council elects its ministers (a number of commissioners proportional to the weight of each group in parliament). The decisions taken by parliament would then be valid for all the Union's member countries, and decisions taken later would be valid on a transitional basis for the fifteen current members and then renegotiated in future decades (twenty years for achieving economic union seems reasonable).

***

Proposal 4.2- A European rural policy 

Context and reasons – Given the current political and economic context, extending the CAP to the east seems impossible. The fifteen do not want to pay more, certain countries such France refuse to renegotiate milk quotas, etc. The CAP in its entirety is inappropriate for the countries of the East. Conversely, it is difficult and not necessarily desirable for countries such as Poland, 27% of whose population works in agriculture, to undergo in five years the changes that have taken in France in the last fifty years. 

Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that the rural vitality of Eastern countries is such that many regions of Western Europe can only envy them. Regarding rural development, the divide is not easy to estimate. Rather than destroying this potential, it should be given support. It would be absurd to observe in the West that we have gone too far with industrializing agriculture and dismantling the rural fabric and impose the same excesses on the East with respect to rural development. Union between the two Europes is a very valuable opportunity for rethinking the whole of rural development, the balance between urban and rural relationships and the management of common territory. The objective is therefore to set up a rural policy at European level that is not solely devoted to agriculture. This policy would be implemented from the outset of territorial union in Europe and be consolidated in the years to come.
 
The CAP maintained temporarily for the fifteen countries would be harmonized at the same rhythm as the borders between the East and West fall. (The principle for setting up single markets should be the reduction of tariff barriers against the reduction of subsidies.) 

Mechanism – The CAP development funds (the second pillar of the structure!) should merge with part of the structural funds in order to set up a rural policy whose objective are to:
•	maintain rural population levels;
•	preserve vital natural resources constituted by soils, water and biodiversity. 

Privileged partners – Instead of the agricultural community which is made up of a professional category (which is difficult to define in areas where multiple activities exist or persist) a rural policy would be aimed at all projects intended for implementation in the territory as whole. In this framework, territorial authorities (municipalities, groups of municipalities, etc.) would be the privileged partners of this European rural development policy, or at least regarding its major orientations.

The chapter concerning the regulation of CAP markets, which currently takes up most of the budget, must be given a "harmonization schedule", the alternatives being:
•	either total disappearance (the more prices are supported, the more quotas there are, and the more markets are regulated), but this appears neither realistic or desirable,
•	or the setting up of community policies that maintain the CAP extended to all countries. This solution implies that Europe is capable it international level of explaining and justifying such an "agricultural exception".  

***

Proposal 4.3- Strengthening democracy by improving transparency 

Context and reason – The effective capacity for democracy at European level is weakened by increasing the number of member countries, institutional blurring and the multiplication of administrative levels and also by the absence of representation by civil society. Even though the countries of Eastern and Central Europe are starting from a situation where civil society is almost absent, this problem is shared by the rest of Europe. At present, control over the use of European funds by citizens is complex, due in many cases to the attitudes taken by member states. Obviously, it is out of the question for Europe to go over the heads of national and regional structures to encourage setting up civil society where it does not exist. Given their present sensitivity, few national governments would tolerate what they would consider as interference. Furthermore, massive intervention by the European Union would create new risks of loss of control, i.e. the creation of a "clientele" civil society, etc. What is more, civil society has different forms depending on the country and it would be ridiculous to brutally impose one country's system on another's. Each population creates original systems of civil society in comparable democratic frameworks. To take only the examples of France and Great Britain, France's 36,000 communes attract a large share of voluntary work done on behalf of municipal councils, whereas in Britain this voluntary work is done for NGOs. Whatever the procedures, what counts in the end is the number of persons involved in public life. We must simply strive to create an environment that encourages civil society that functions well by placing trust in Europeans to set up movements and organizations themselves. One of the keys to this environment is plenty of good information.

Mechanism and implementation – Citizens should have access to all information on the use of European funds at every level. Thus the union and each beneficiary of European funds (with perhaps a minimum of 1,000 Euros received in a year), should prove the use of such funds (e.g., to the nearest 100 Euros, as smaller amounts would make reading difficult). The European Commission would draw up a report on the type of expenses municipality by municipality, county by county and region by region. This report would be available on the Net and it would be possible to request copies specific to a municipality, a region and a State. The EU could also support setting up a computer network (1 workstation per municipality or per 1,000 inhabitants) dedicated to the transparency of European fund utilization. Thus any European citizen or group of citizens could obtain information on the European fund assigned to his or her territory or for any other part of Europe. 

The persons involved – Any private or public structure receiving more than 10,000 euros per year would be bound to make a one page report (or one page per sum of 5.000 euros, etc.) containing: 
1-	an explanation of the actions carried out and their results,
2-	an account of the expenses (to the nearest 100 euros). 

These reports would be handed over to the Union, which would be responsible for transforming them into a single report. (Nb: states and regions and projects using more than 150.000 Euros would have to translate their report in English, German, Spanish, Italian, Polish and French).

Finance – Each DG would make a pro rata contribution of its budget to setting up a network of workstations. The beneficiaries of the European funds would be responsible for writing the reports. 
 
***

Proposal 4.4- Food security

Problem:  Food security is a legitimate concern of populations and their governments. However, reality can be deceptive. Producing a lot does not mean that one is self-sufficient if imports of intermediate products were needed to achieve. These intermediate products are animal feed, petroleum which we don not produce and on which we are dependent. This is the case of Europe today! To this must be added the fact that the food required by a population does not depend only on production levels but also on logistics (transports, etc.). At present one can prophesize with reasonable certainty that in the case of a crisis comparable to World War II, Europe would suffer more from famine malnutrition than from 1940 to 1945. A food security policy must set more serious and complex objectives than supporting production. Stock must be taken of the reality of current agricultural production: a link in the food production and distribution chain. Furthermore, a policy that consists of confusing food self-sufficiency and maximum production naturally generates surpluses, with the result of eliminating economically weaker production systems and increasing the risks of famine! The fear of hunger of some creates the risk of famine for others.

Proposal - A food security policy is not one of creating structural surpluses, especially when these surpluses waste resources. On the contrary, a policy can include shortages made up by imports provided two objectives are followed: the first is a policy of product storage to offset temporary shortages (poor harvests, conflict, trade wars). This is the logic of Pharaoh. The second objective is to maintain production and distribution capacities (soil, water, skills, qualified and plentiful labor, transport modes and conservation) and a plan for mobilizing these capacities in cases of emergency (a state of food emergency). At present there is no crisis scenario on which to base such a procedure.  

Comment: Sustainable agriculture already represents considerable progress towards the objective of food self-sufficiency since it places emphasis on reducing the consumption of natural resources. Producing with fewer imports would certainly be step towards food security. 

Implementation: This type of measure may be difficult to implement without the support of public authorities. In truth, the food security of all is a public right. As for the subject of over-production, Europe has been obliged in the past to manage the storage of stocks for socially questionable purposes. It is difficult to see why it cannot do so for unquestionable ones. Regarding maintaining production potentials as they are, these vary for different reasons. From the environmental point of view, they essentially concern environmental protection measures. From the technical point of view, it is enough to maintain part of the territory as arable land. Lastly, from the human point of view the aim is to preserve farming know-how.   

Plenary session of participants of non-European countries of the Mediterranean basin

•	Ziad Abdul-Samad, Lebanon
Ziad's speech was not recorded, though he was kind enough to send us his notes which we report below in order to give the main points concerning the Euromed partnership.

The main factors underpinning the partnership project:
1.	The geopolitical factor, especially after the fall of the Berlin Wall. In other words the need for preventive action against conflicts in Eastern Europe.
2.	Globalisation and the creation of regional and sub-regional blocks.
3.	Safety and more specifically unequal distribution of revenues between the northern and southern shores may lead to conflicts.

Officially declared targets:
1.	Creation of an area of peace and security, based on democratic principles and respect for human rights.
2.	Creation of a prosperous free trade area between the European Union and its southern partners until 2010.
3.	Contribution to development and the formation of an active civil society.

The genuine reasons:
1.	Profit from the projects launched in the Middle East intended to set up a Middle Eastern and Arab World Common Market, especially following the Madrid peace process.
2.	The structural adjustment programmes imposed by international financial institutions (World Bank and IMF) on the southern Mediterranean countries that have paved the way for the "Euromed" project.
3.	The tendency of Europe to protect its interests against increasing US domination, made even stronger after the Gulf War.
4.	The position taken by Europe to solve the "immigration problem" by economic development designed to create jobs and improve living conditions.
5.	The very cautious approach taken in Arab countries to implement democracy.

It should be noted that the agreements are a very important and efficient tool for applying pressure to implement policies in both Southern and Eastern countries. Aid and financial contributions are ideal forms of intervening in the domestic affairs of these countries.

The three main sections of the partnership:
1.	The Political Peace and Security section: this implies setting up a Common Area of Peace and Security.
2.	The Social, Cultural and Humanitarian section: this implies developing human resources and cultural exchange, including the free circulation of persons, migration and labour.
3.	The Economic and Financial section: this implies setting up a free trade and prosperity area, through sustainable economic and social development and the combat against poverty.

Evaluation and critical analysis of the Euromed Partnership:
The main obstacle to partnership is the worrying lack of democracy in the region, making political and social democratisation necessary to increase the participation of civil society and thus the people. This not only prevents genuine development but undermines the legitimacy of the regimes and by repercussion the role of the state on both sides of the Mediterranean.

The obstacles to developing the partnership:
1.	There is no clear and well-defined project for the partnership; it lacks overall vision and economic, political, social and cultural relations. It also lacks a well-defined objective. Likewise, there is a lack of clarity regarding the mechanisms and instruments to make it function.
2.	The bureaucratic and sometimes corrupt method of operation of European institutions in charge of partnership projects impedes and slows down closer relations between the two shores and the partnership in general.
3.	The way the EU treats the circulation of persons and its visa restrictions, giving priority to security rather to humanity, reflects the intentions behind this partnership. This subject is one of the threats to the creation of a democratic Europe and a partnership respectful of human rights. 
4.	The Arab-Israeli conflict: the Israeli occupation of territories belonging to neighbouring Arab countries and especially of Palestine is a major obstacle. Furthermore, the USA does not fulfil an efficient role in building just, comprehensive and lasting peace, leaving this task to the UAE. This weakens the EU's legitimacy, having negative effects on the partnership. The EU calls for abidance with international resolutions and charters but does nothing in practice to apply the UN resolutions on Palestine (especially resolutions 194, 242 and 332). 
5.	Lastly, respect for human rights is an essential pillar of European construction and the Euromed partnership. However, the EU does nothing to oblige Israel to respect human rights; quite the contrary, Israel belongs to the partnership and profits from all aids and contributions in spite of its active racism against the Palestinian people in the occupied territories.

European construction lacks clarity and has no clearly determined objectives: is it the creation of a European super state or a structure of economic political, social and cultural coordination, or else a free trade area?

Furthermore, the executive authorities of the European institutions suffer from excess bureaucracy which makes them inefficient at best and counter-productive (even corrupt) at worst.

Globalisation and regional economic groups constitute threats. These difficulties, to put it lightly, will only disappear if all the economic agreements that have been signed undergo thorough critical examination and modification. This especially concerns the liberalisation of markets, opening borders, pulling down tariff and non-tariff barriers and eliminating subsidies to developing countries, whereas the developed countries still maintain their barriers on the free circulation of goods, services and people. This also applies to agricultural subsidies and non-conformity with quotas for textiles, leather and clothes.

The European proposal to start a new round of trade negotiations in the WTO to deregulate additional sectors such as investment, government procurement, the environment and working conditions privileges multinationals to the detriment of the peoples of developing countries and their conditions of development. 

This is why the objective must be to set up a partnership capable of meeting the challenges of  neo-liberal globalisation. 
This is how we see Europe and the project for partnership. We are willing to collaborate with all those who share this approach to build a pilot partnership together and efficient regional groups on both sides of the Mediterranean, for the peace, prosperity and development of all. 

•	Fathi Chamkhi, Tunisia
The beginning of her speech was barely audible.

…We participated in another summit held at Marseilles last November. This summit was the first step in mobilising the resistances and convergences in the combats of Mediterranean peoples against liberal globalisation and its disastrous effects in the region, especially for the countries of the south. This liberal globalisation of the Mediterranean has a name: the Euromed partnership, as formulated by the European Commission and launched at Barcelona in 1995. This partnership does not correspond to the hopes and desires of the regions' peoples. However, regional impetus must be generated to satisfy the great and urgent needs of the people, especially those of the South. Setting up co-operation projects intended for social development is urgent in the Mediterranean. Far from giving perspectives for development, this liberal partnership destabilises and destructures already fragile social and economic system that have to bear the burden of foreign debt, falling raw material prices, structural adjustment plans, etc. The miracle solution offered to developing countries so they eventually attain prosperity is already being applied in Europe through the uncontrolled liberalisation of its members' economies and generalised free trade. Far from promoting independent development that respects both the environment and human beings, the thinking behind these agreements can only widen the gulf between the industrialised countries, which have flourishing and competitive industries, and the developing countries, victims of decades of pillage and one-sided relations. Restructuring developing countries as a function of liberal tenets implies even greater austerity. Reduced salaries and higher taxes, growing unemployment, insecure jobs and worsening working conditions create barriers to general education, the combat against illiteracy, investment in research, expanding health services and rehabilitating unsafe and unhealthy dwellings. This partnership places European wage earners in competition with the workers of developing countries, further strengthening the power of transnational corporations. The social disparities between Europe and the countries of the South are used to gnaw away the social rights of the workers of both sides of the Mediterranean. The aim is to floor social rights and then all the attributes of citizenship. This policy hits women and children first. We are repeatedly told that the Euro-Mediterranean region will be the home of human rights and democracy, but how can we believe European governments that still support the most authoritarian and repressive regimes in the region six years after having signed the Barcelona declaration? What credence can be given to their will to defend the rights of the individual when one of these basic rights, that of free circulation, is constantly ignored by the ramparts of the Schengen Agreement? The freedom of circulation is only fit for goods and capital, but not for men and women. Peace in the region and proclaiming the right of peoples to live freely are impossible while Israel continues its colonisation and denies the Palestinian people its right to found an independent state, while it massacres Palestinian children in total impunity and forces part of this people into endless exile. In the place of this Mediterranean based on inequality, injustice and without rights, we propose a civic, democratic, social and united Mediterranean that respects the environment. The Mediterranean project must be based on genuine development that benefits all the region's peoples. This entails narrowing the divide between the two shores, if need be by implementing measures biased in favour of the peoples of the south. This would raise the working and living conditions of everyone in the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean that we want will be built to satisfy the social, political, educational and cultural needs of the people and not the falsely inevitable constraints of the market. 	Both the north and south have advantages that could be used to avoid misery, mass unemployment, illiteracy, violence, conflict, fundamentalism, competition, delocalisation, exclusion, racism and inequality. Citizens, NGOs, associations and the unions of all countries, whether alone or in networks, are committed to resistance, which they have already shown at the Marseilles Summit and at others, giving life to alternative solidarity and cultures, and giving substance to other local projects. These requirements demand genuine finance from society, on the scale of the Mediterranean. Considerable resources can be granted by Europe, especially if it were to tax financial transactions and write off the debt of the developing countries of the south and east Mediterranean. Mediterranean countries should henceforth put their commitments into practice and devote 0.7% of GNP to public development aid. Peoples should be free to decide for themselves and choose their own future; they must be able to decide democratically the type of relations they want to develop with other peoples of the Mediterranean. Human rights issues such as abolishing the death penalty, democracy and popular sovereignty are not subsidiary issues, rather they are the part of the foundations of the partnership we seek. Likewise, these mechanisms must be democratic and be controlled by civil society from their formulation to their implementation. Lastly, building peace in the Mediterranean demands that the entire region be made nuclear free, with the dismantlement of all the American and NATO bases in the region and the immediate raising of embargos against populations, especially that against the Iraqi people. The UN cannot fulfil its original role as long as it remains under the thumb of American hegemony. Carrying out these measures, and defining and implementing a vaster alternative, demands action from a social movement respectful of cultural pluralism and the environment, that takes its strength from democratic and popular roots. 
I am totally convinced that your assembly is a decisive step towards this goal.
Thank you.

•	Mustafa Ateek, Palestine

I am a Palestinian, born in a Palestinian refugee camp. We came from a Palestinian village of four thousand inhabitants that was razed to the ground in 1948. They are all refugees now. All that remains of this village and its church are ruins that can be visited when passing through. What brings me to speak about the history of this conflict? Because as a European citizen, I have noticed that people often speak of its consequences without looking back at its origins.
Everything started in 1947, when the UN decided to separate Palestine into two states: the state of Israel and the Arab state of Palestine. For the record, the Jewish community in Palestine (because it was not yet the state of Israel) possessed 6% of Palestinian territory, whereas the partition gave this community more than half of Palestine. Things speeded up in 1948 with the creation of the State of Israel, immediately resulting in the expulsion of 900,000 Palestinians in one year, including all my family, to, refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, where they have lived for 52 years. A small number of Palestinians succeeded in remaining in what became Israel, becoming foreigners in their own country overnight, second rate citizens or what are called Israeli Arabs.
Israel is the only state in the world to have been founded by decision of the UN and the international community; since which this state has never applied a single decision issued by the UN. A paradoxical situation since Israel, a state born from a historically generous decision, refuses to apply the resolutions of the international community concerning the conflict, whether they concern the right to return or the right to found a Palestinian state, treating them like so much trash. 
It was in 1948 that the Naqba or disaster occurred for us Palestinians; on the contrary, it was the birth of the Israeli State on 80% of Palestinian land thus over more territory than the partition had already provided. During the following 19 years, from 1948 to 1967, the State of Israel succeeded in forming a Blitzkrieg style army capable of occupying the whole of Palestine, then the Golan Heights in Syria and then the Sinai and all its Arab neighbours in only five days. This is when UN decision 242 was made which demanded the immediate and unconditional retreat of the Israeli army from all the territories occupied in 1967. These have since been called the Occupied Territories.
Since June 1967: The UN Security Council passed the resolution to demand the total and unconditional retreat of Israeli forces from this territory, including from East Jerusalem which was part of the territories conquered in 1967. Even the United States, which systematically uses its veto to protect Israel, could not use it this time. 
I shall go faster, and just mention the event in 1982 that everyone knows about, the massacres at Sabra and Chatila ordered by Mr Ariel Sharon, the current Prime Minister of Israel. This brings us to the Oslo Agreements that Europe tried to set up and sponsored with the United States and Russia. This agreement was made between the sovereign state of Israel and an occupied people. It was obviously very difficult to oblige Israel to apply even the Oslo agreements which amounted to a ceasefire while waiting to get down to discuss the real problem which is the return of the refugees and retreat from the territories. Unfortunately, Israel even failed to respect the Oslo agreements, which were nowhere near what the Palestinians had hoped for. This was all done in total impunity. Interventions in conflicts have occurred for far less, and here we are confronted by a state that has defied the entire world since 1948 with impunity.
The Palestinians despaired after non-compliance by Israel with the Oslo agreements, leading to the second Intifada that has lasted since 28 September of last year.
Thanks to the media, you have all seen the bloody repression used to quell this popular revolt. I dislike political speeches, preferring civic ones and because I am in an assembly of citizens. I will simply quote a short text by an Israeli writer and journalist that appeared in the newspaper of a Russian community in Israel: "Our Jewish army murders civilians, demolishes houses, starves people and besieges Palestinian villages. Our crimes surpass those committed by the Russians in Chechnya and Afghanistan, those of the Americans in Vietnam and those of the Serbs in Bosnia."
Today the situation is worse than explosive. European construction needs lasting peace and thus peace in the Middle East. There is no peace without justice and justice requires the application of the resolutions voted by the entire international community. We ask for the application of the international resolutions concerning this conflict; we only ask to live in peace in an independent Palestinian State alongside the State of Israel. I ask this quite simply as a citizen of the world, as a Palestinian refugee, a human being whose family, like four million other people, lives in refugee camps in miserable conditions. I can demand rights for all, human rights are valid for all. We are also humans and have the right to life, peace and education, and we have the right to our own land. I call on every Palestinian and Israeli citizen, all the citizens of the world, and since we are in Europe, I call on European citizens to bring pressure to bear on the organisations and public opinion so that Israel’s impunity ceases; that this State that has defied humanity for 51 years ceases, so that we can build, so that I can return to other Alliance assemblies and speak of the Palestinian economy, development, etc. and not only tell you the figures of the last Intifada: more than 500 dead, 9,000 injured including a thousand permanently handicapped, and so forth. I don’t want to tell you these figures. However, I want to return in a few years to say that we are in the sovereign State of Palestine, that our capital is Jerusalem, that the refugees that have been waiting fifty years to return home have finally done so, and speak to you of problems other than that which I have just spoken of.
Thank you.

•	Amina Rachid, Egypt

I shall not speak here of the recent events that we may have seen shown on  television in all their atrocity. Neither shall I speak of the encircling of the West Bank, and the economic, geographic, cultural and human war waged against it, nor the closing of its borders. We have spoken a lot about opening borders but in my mind and heart I saw all these borders closed. I shall say little about an injustice done over fifty years ago, supposedly giving a land without people to a people without land. I shall simply deal with one point of the conflict, that of the right to return. No peace is possible or conceivable without the right of return for these refugees scattered around the world. This right of return means the restitution of the most basic and legitimate rights to a dispossessed people.
Just before the event of 1948, 1,200,000 Arabs were living in Palestine with 635,000 Jews. 900,000 Arabs were expelled either immediately or else frightened into fleeing. Under Ben Gourion's government,  450 Palestinian villages were razed to the ground. Only a few buildings abandoned by Palestinians remained and Israeli settlements developed around them. Everyone knows the story of the key that Palestinians carry in their pockets after 53 years with the hope of returning one day. 
What of resolution 194, adopted by the UN General Assembly on November 11, 1948, related to the refugees' right of return and their right to compensation if they did not want to return. Israel refused and this refusal will continue. Then came the war of 1967, with the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians by force or intimidation. According to the latest UN statistics, there are now 3,700,000 Palestinian refugees.
Like everyone else, the Palestinians are entitled to the right of citizenship, but many Palestinians currently have no identity cards, thus prohibiting them from any movement. They all have travel documents issued by the UN, and some documents exist thanks to new laws, but they are humiliated and persecuted every time they cross borders. As we have seen, the most recent violation struck our comrade, scheduled to come from the West Bank, though prevented from leaving his country. The countries that voted for partition in 1947 at the UN do nothing for the refugees. However, an Israeli management takes care of the property and land abandoned by the Palestinian refugees. It is untrue that Israel cannot absorb those Palestinians who want to return; it has taken in a million immigrants from the former Soviet Union, so it is economically capable of taking in the refugees as well. Year after year, this country takes in 50,000 new Jewish immigrants. I shall conclude with a proposal made to the consciences of all those who struggle for a fairer and happier world, for a united and responsible Europe, one which is happier for itself and its neighbours, and to take a more positive attitude towards the European Union. It is to demand that the Union considers and examines the claims made by the Palestinians, that is to say the liberation of all the occupied territories, the dismantling of the colonies, the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine and above all the right of return of all these refugees around the world.
Thank you.

•	Radovane Mohamed Zizi, Algeria

I am Algerian, a country also in need of peace. But before speaking about peace, I would like to speak about the media. Although the media are rightly presumed to make public opinion, they can also mislead it. This is why I would like to say that the claims made at present by the Berber or Amazir region, that is to say Kabuli, are national rather than regional claims. The recent adoption of a new penal code that stifles freedom of expression concerns every sector of society and not only the independent press, and all those who belong to the Amazigh people. These claims, which are mostly fuelled by repression in different forms, combined with connivance with terrorism, are part of a strategy used by the government to foster differences between regions. They show false reports of Arabs demonstrating in Algiers, whereas these demonstrations occur in Kabuli with all those that accompany them. Thus recently over the past months they have succeeded several times in transforming peaceful actions into confrontations. The Algerian Presidency turns a deaf ear to this turmoil, which is to say it is attempting to isolate the problems or, in more technical terms, contain them and eliminate all forms of democratic expression by political parties, the press, unions and civil society in general. Then, as if nothing has happened, it launched new reforms and celebrated its alliance with armed and political fundamentalism. Until when? The answer surely depends on the social movement and its progression, and on civil society which resists, in spite of repressive acts amounting to crimes against humanity. I think it resists better than it did fifteen years ago. It is very difficult for me to speak to you, since an Algerian President was overthrown by the army in 1965 and it could happen again today. This is the force that controls decision-making in Algeria now. 
So the debate remains open, though I am cut off from information, like you, and I don't have the means to inform you of what is happening. However, yesterday, there were still more dead in Algeria, but the social movement continues and I hope it will reach its goals.
Thank you.

Plenary closing session, European Continental Assembly, Peles, Romania

(Restitution of topical groups: see the reports by topic)

Transversal restitution formulated following the topical restitutions.
•	Philippe Cacciabue

It is very difficult to write a synthesis while the iron is hot, though it is clear that several convergent elements with similar contents were brought to the fore in different ways by two, three and even four reporters. Here, I shall simply mention them:
-An initial section concerns Europe and our neighbours and Europe and the rest of the world. There is a need for Europe to build foundations of responsibility, meaning that Europe cannot be built on the basis of rights that we give to ourselves while failing to give them to others. Thus there is an absolute requirement to only choose those principles of European construction that can also be applied to others. This is not the case at present. Europe is developing according to modes of production and relations that do not permit the rest of the planet to develop. Likewise, we must carry out a full review of our relations with our neighbours; we must start out anew on the basis of equality between us and them. Is it still possible to consider the weight of history, the debt and so forth to be a relevant framework for working together? We must work on relations that are contractual in time, with steps and in a differentiated way. It is no longer possible to use a single system of relations with others. In MIG, on co-development and RUR, it is clear that we cannot continue using the same relations of development aid. Furthermore, we must learn to manage the phases of change better than we have up to now. We have a principle in the RUR group, for example, regarding enlargement: as long as enlargement and reunification have not been achieved, everything must be done to protect economies, resources and the social fabric of the countries involved. We cannot continue advancing by preaching that it is possible to unite without taking urgent measures of precaution specific to those countries queuing for membership. This amounts to saying that Europe cannot continue to destroy and degrade other countries.
Another thing that I learned from the general atmosphere during the five days of our meeting was that we cannot build Europe without peace. This means that our project can only be credible if we are capable of anticipating conflicts and confront this problem with far greater seriousness than Europe has shown up to now. 
- The second section is a Europe of citizens. Everyone agrees on several points. We must first build a Europe that gives its inhabitants the means to control their own destinies and make their own choices. However, this is not the case at present. We need a Europe that listens. It needs institutions, methods and tools in order to consult its inhabitants. For example, the Swiss constitution incorporates the means for consulting the country’s citizens, the cost being paid by the community. It is out of the question that it a is luxury only for the rich, it is vital that we give ourselves the means to consult the people. We need a comprehensible Europe. Several times, I have heard people say “I don’t understand anything!” We don’t understand the world in which we live, so we need more information, that is also more reliable and clearer. Europe must be more transparent. Incidentally, the other day I spoke of the black box into which our money goes, though we know nothing of its ultimate destination, nothing about who decides what, and we don’t know what we eat or consume. In short, we must have knowledge to be capable of making choices, to take on our responsibilities and finally our solidarity by making our choices. A generous and human Europe. No, profit is not the ultimate goal, no more than are the market and work. Resituating humanity at the centre is a commonplace statement, though what I have heard gives it very concrete forms. It implies reconsidering our entire education system, which is designed for accumulating knowledge but not for protecting ourselves, or for learning about the world. It entails the recognition of our existence, whether one works or not, whether one is a woman or a man, we exist and are someone. We need an open Europe, one in which all are welcome everywhere, confident that the stranger at our door brings us wealth rather than a threat; this is the principle of this welcome. Lastly, a Europe that does not abandon the principle of cohesion and solidarity. It is the assertion that we cannot tolerate our neighbours living in misery, we prefer sharing our wealth because all in all it is better, even for us. I heard this principle of cohesion several times.
- There is something else that can be shared though slightly less. All the groups mentioned it. It is the principle of a sustainable Europe, that is to say a Europe that respects rather than destroys itself, especially with respect to natural resources. A Europe that is not only sustainable but which chooses methods of functioning that permits sustainability elsewhere. For example, we cannot ask China to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions if we don’t do so ourselves. We cannot demand that others uphold human rights and other rules if we don’t apply them to ourselves. So, Europe must opt for an approach to development that is universal.
- A Europe of open territories. Here again, the principle of subsidiarity was taken up by all the groups. Our environment is best understood at local level, there where we live, where we see how it works. This is the level where solidarity between people is real and where the principle of subsidiarity can be implemented. This does not mean territories as isolated components but as open ones that increasingly exchange people and experiences between East, West, North and South. We are stuck in a straightjacket that we need to throw off. We need to be more flexible and fluid in our treatment of knowledge, meaning and people.
So, roughly, that is what stays clearest in my mind after the four exposés. But I think we still need to work on at least two things. Firstly, the words used. There were still far too many cultural misunderstandings in the RUR, WORK and MIG groups, because not enough work has been done on the concepts and what the words convey.
Furthermore, we are making progress by working together, but we still need to learn to dream together, free ourselves from existing cultural rules and stop saying that nothing can be done because of the WTO, the market and so  forth. There seems to be a problem in calling such and such a principle into question, and wondering about what it could be replaced by. This is what I mean by the collective dream we must continue working towards.
I shall return to the problem of enlargement, this time on the basis of my group. This opinion is not taken from the syntheses. We wanted to drop the use of the word “enlargement”, preferring to speak of “reunification” or another Europe. There was relatively general agreement with the proposal, that I am sure you also agree with, that political union  should be achieved before economic union. To do this, we need to organise another Peles, but instead of repeating our participation, we will invite 50 Members of Parliament from the East and 50 from the West to work for five days on the same subjects and with the same methods. What Europe do they want and what principles do they want to apply? I hope that one day we shall meet at Peles to listen to reports made by European MPs of their debates.
Thank you.

Debate

•	Hans Harms
What you need is not a long speech after this week of work, so I promise to be short. Just few general considerations, a sort of evaluation. There was a big diversity in our groups, not only because of the different countries or cultures but also of ages, professional experiences and so on. This means in one hand a problem, for example for the methodology or the topics, but on the other hand it was a chance because regarding many points of view, it really opens our minds. I think that most of you express a great satisfaction on a personal level and I think you evaluated this meeting as a unic experience of mutual enrichment. What I found out in our group but also in the other groups, that means in a face to face situation, was a real exchange on our conception of reality and future. We face the conflict with the people coming from Georgia, Palestine, Israel or wherever, this time we see a face in front of us. That means that we were more directly affected.
In what regards the contents, we are in a process of transformation of our societies which seem to be in crisis. And this means, we are today not at the end of this event but at the same time at the starting point of a process ; it seems that there is enough energy, interest and collective stimulation in this group. But at the same time I want to remind you that this is a feeling that can disappear very fast when you come back, when you return to your everyday life, in the routine ; and we need some body in each group who stimulate and relly everyone to the others. And we have to do it in a very short time.
One question, that came up yesterday evening between the animators, was : how to name this group, to name this initiative. One answer which came out was to call it Equinox of Peles that we are celebrating this night. But I have to confess you that we speak about this very late in the night yesterday and we were really a little bit crazy. I am not sure of the pertinence of this proposal.
What will come in the next future ? In a few weeks you will see the results of this week, especially those presented in the two plenary sessions, but also more details because the synthesis are developped in others detailed documents. You will receive as well the results of the box of offers and demands. And shortly you will receive a precise questionnaire to evaluate this meeting ; we ask you to be precise and critical in order to not make a self congratulation.
The results of this meeting would be presented at the big meeting which will be held in Lille at the end of the year, it is also for this reason that we ask you a feedback.
What the Alliance can offer you to the next future is to maintain this kind of letterbox, the web site and the email where you can send your contributions. But we recommand you to create email lists of those of you who want to collaborate on special topics.
And finally I would like to ask you for a big applause for all of those who make it possible to be here, who worked on logistics, who prepared and served the meals for us, people making the translations, the travel agency, and everybody who make possible this unic and unbeleavable event that I am sure nobody of us will forget in his life.
Thank you very much.

•	Sandro Guiglia

I would also like to use the term that Philippe used in his synthesis, that of the dream, and I propose you a dream on a second level. I think that the need we have of maintaining relations and contacts should be realised by an initiative, a common project. I turn to Manola and the people of the Alliance, to propose that we should immediately launch a campaign based on the Europe we want, that is to say how to build a project for society and civilisation. I think that a campaign of this type should be aimed at expressing opinion directly to institutions and building  relationships between different sectors of civil society and European forums. Debate must be generated between European populations on a project for Europe in the face of globalisation. This approach could also be used to give life to participatory democracy, by leaving behind a position based on opposition to take up one based on proposal. In my opinion it is important to do this in order to develop awareness of the danger of neo-conservatism and therefore participate with those who are setting up networks to combat economic globalisation, that of markets, and so forth.
I see this campaign as having two levels of work: on one side there is the chief dimension of building European forums of discussion groups. In the past significant experiments have taken place such as political cafes, that is say groups of people that think, and I remember the experience of Barcelona that I feel was very important, that of groups of people that rethought society in view to imagining the type of project of society we want for ourselves.
The second level would permit something wider, to presume that we already have the right to propose laws and popular initiatives. This entails making a petition aimed at the institution that currently represents Europe, that is to say the European Parliament to be elected in 2004. This petition would demand that the European Parliament gives us a Constitution or a Charter encompassing the entirety of a political and internal project in which we want to incorporate the right to referendums and especially the right to popular initiatives. I think that if we can set up thousands of groups that debate and think of the Europe we want, on the one hand, and if, on the other, these groups collect signatures in front of churches, in markets, etc., then we would have an influence on the way European citizens think about the challenges facing them and make them aware that if we participate directly we can succeed in changing things. This would be an experience that would use this methodology, this process of construction, as a framework rather than as a model, since Europe should not be reduced to a model, 
At present, we can only count on ourselves to carry out such a vast campaign. We must make contacts with other groups in Europe that are making similar proposals. We must widen the project rather than build on just ourselves. My dream is to return home and be able to widen the proposal and launch it. Of course, civil society is made up of many very different sectors and the organisers of discussion groups obtain very different things, but so be it, that is diversity. I think that, for example, unions work on subjects related to labour, ecologists on the conservation of territories, etc. What is important is to be a catalyst, the snowball that becomes an avalanche. To achieve this, the material that we have produced here should be used, beyond being a contribution to the Lille Assembly, as a basic document for launching these discussion groups.
The first phase of collaboration between us could be that one of us offers to work on all this material to produce something that is both simple and attractive. The second phase would consist of finding possibilities of alliance. Indeed, each of you belongs to community movements and is aware of different realities. Our friends in Belarus spoke to us of initiatives that have already been programmed.
Therefore there could be a phase consisting of diffusing what has been produced here and a phase of collecting existing experiences and initiatives. The first attempts to organise this project must be started in September. We could then start working on something more concrete, for example, on January 1 or December 25, according to desire, and give ourselves until the end of 2004 to collect the signatures. Taken proportionally, in comparison with the Swiss, we need 3 million signatures. This is a lot. Despite the fact that this operation will have no legal value, its political value will have considerable impact, since, on the one hand, if we can present to the future parliament the results of hundreds of discussion groups on the Europe we want, with the guidelines of what we have started to set out together and, on the one hand, a petition with one and a half million signatures, this would have significant political impact. This is my dream. Tell me if it is possible and how it can be organised.

On behalf of Manola, I would also like to propose another initiative. In order not to bring bad luck, one should not announce things that are still in the process of gestation, but we are thinking of setting up a European review or a web site devoted to civil society. I do not yet know what form it will take, but we can already rely on three groups in Italy and France. If this idea takes root, the main problem will be to obtain news and information to study and diffuse. It could be useful tool in Europe.

Addition from Manola :
Newsletters on civil society exist already in every European country. Also, when you say that information must reach us, I would just like to say one thing. Information exists there where it is but it must be mobile. There will not necessarily be concentrations of information. I have become aware of this here at Peles. People are already diffusing information and it would no be just another medium or tool, rather it would serve to strengthen and unite all these kinds of initiative.

Debate

•	Manola Gardez Rauss

Today is June 21, the day chosen to link the five continental assemblies together. Marti is the person responsible for setting up communication between the assemblies. You haven’t heard very much about these other assemblies, but several of them are starting today, whereas our assembly is ending. 
We have also had the pleasure to welcome Maxime for the Americas and Innocent for Africa.

•	Marti Olivella

He reads the message received from India. 
We have sent 45 pages of messages to the other meetings.
We have been able to meet each other despite many problems, but it’s the first step of a long process. We are a small mark on the calendar, but we are also jointly responsible for setting out the next steps. Sandro has just proposed a few of these but we must also determine strategic perspectives for the coming years. We have profited from the working programme proposed by the Alliance that has lasted for seven years, though now we have reached the end and we must now define the future. It would be a good idea to add our proposals to the reflections of each topical group so we can combine what we do. This time we received the money required to meet together but we won’t receive it again in future years. Have you seen the list of participants? The column of emails is complete. It’s incredible, since it would not have been possible only a few years ago. It’s the first time in history that ordinary men and women can work and share their hopes remotely, without money. This gives us a lot of independence and we ought to benefit from it to work together during the years to come.
The idea of the drums of peace was also started by this team six months ago.
Today, June 21 there are about 10,000 people who will play these drums around the world, proving that it is possible to organise remotely.
Thank you.

•	Maxime Laplante

I would first like to thank you for accepting me as an observer and as a participant. I have felt so much a participant that I broached the question of Canada becoming a member of the European Union!
Marti has sent me the messages and writings of the other correspondents for the assembly at Quito in Ecuador. There were 3 correspondents: the first spoke of their desire to globalise hope; the second spoke of the resistance of indigenous communities while the last emphasised the different combats against neo-conservatism.
If someone asked me what the differences are between the Americas and Europe I think I would say that the only common denominator I see is the lack of democracy. Whether at home in Canada or here, everyone is asking where the train in which they are in is going.
I shall end by saying that if problems have become global, we must build a network because contact is indispensable. We can never get to know each other by the Internet, we must meet at least once.
Thank you.

•	Innocent Muhozi

Thank you Maxime for making me feel less guilty about not fulfilling my role of observer enough and being too much of a participant. I shan’t be the only occupant in the condemned cell! 
The aim of the Caravan project is to restore dignity in Africa, and much was said of dignity here in Europe too. It is also to attempt to get Africa to participate in creating this responsible and united world that we all want.
The adult generation has not known colonisation or slavery and has no scores to settle due to these tragedies, even though it still suffers their consequences. It is also a generation of people that says that there are still too many tears and too much misery. They are the people that are now touring Africa, but they are not the only ones who want to change things.
What I have learned here is that when hearing about a country that one does not know, it remains abstract. Now I know you and I would be right in worrying if I heard that there are problems in your countries. The world is become forever smaller and there are no longer many far away places. The rights that ensure human dignity are the same everywhere. 
Concerning our meeting, I found the syntheses very timid in comparison with the machine that is now crushing the world. I did not find you subversive enough in relation to the power of money, and political and media power. However, this can be explained by current European reality. The people don’t have the same itineraries or the same concerns. However, I would have preferred more in-depth criticism and more awareness that there are no longer any remote countries. Nobody can pretend that what is happening in any other country does not concern them because fellow citizens also live there. This is a good thing to fuel human consciences.
I don’t know Sandro’s age, but many of us are younger than him at this assembly and it would be a disgrace if we were not as ambitious as he. We must be more rigorous about these dreams of humanity and solidarity and show no compromise for lethal machines. This demands a lot of work and critical minds, but we must not rest on our laurels, since we can never be content as long as those next to us are shedding tears or dying. One way or another their cries and tears will end by touching us, so the combat ahead is still long and tough. Let’s fight it with as much goodwill, hope and commitment as possible.
Since we have the chance to be alive, let’s live and do what we can so that others can live as well as us.
Thank you.

•	Karine Boyer

The image that I shall keep or our meeting here is that of a smile, that of the pleasure and happiness that we have had from being together. We've had more than minor difficulties with our work here, though we have succeeded in building a collective discourse.
Once again, the sheer magnitude and wealth of the results obtained show that meeting one's alter ego, one's other self, cannot be replaced by the modern technology available to us today. We have witnessed the implementation of collective intelligence. This has resulted in an overall increase of understanding and knowledge. The questions that we ask ourselves are no longer the same as those we asked a few days ago, and that in itself has immense value. We are too often told by politicians that there has been a depoliticisation of awareness and that the European project has  broken down. I suspect them of using these arguments to bypass their responsibilities, since our experience here proves otherwise. Our future cannot be left to the exclusive responsibility of experts and politicians in building Europe. The discussions they will have in their cosy offices in Brussels have nothing in comparison to those that we have had here, in groups of non-specialised people from thirty nine different countries. This is obviously the reason why our perspectives diverge so greatly. Will European construction entail a genuine cultural and institutional transformation capable of leading to changes in collective and cultural practices? The vital forces that we represent here also contribute to this process. There is no getting round the magnitude of the challenges to be met, or consultation between the community authorities and all the sectors of civil society gathered here. The European ideal that we have dreamed of here together over the last few days must become a reality. I feel that Sandro's proposal goes in this direction, since the Europe we want is one that expresses solidarity by opening up to the countries to its South and East, it is plural thanks to its wealth of diversity and responsible vis-à- vis the rest of humankind.
On behalf of all the coordinators I would like to thank you all for your patience, seriousness and courage. You have played the game and the rules were not easy. I don't know when we'll meet again but I am sure we will.
A big thank you to you all. See you soon.

Sandro Guiglia
As we said in 1968: "It's only the beginning, the debate continues"

•	Manola Gardez Rauss

The last words will be for those that spoke at the beginning and who were kind enough and had the merit to have welcomed us along with everything that entails in terms of effort, energy and work.

•	Dacian Ciolos

I would first like to thank you for having left your work and family to come to Romania for a few days, for having discovered a country and getting to know its people. We hope these five days have been efficient and that we have provided you with good enough working conditions to permit a productive assembly and reflection.
Personally, I only have one great regret, that of not being able to show more of this country. However, I hope that this lack of actual visits in-the-field has been offset by the warmth of the people around you and who you have met. I also hope that this frustration at not having seen the country will stir your desire to return and discover it as friends.
The challenge was difficult for our association, Agroecologia, but it has been a most enriching experience. I don't know what each of you has learned at this meeting but we have accumulated a great number of experiences that we hope, in the future, to use to the benefit of those close to us.
Now, at the end of this European Assembly, we wish good luck to the Lille World Citizens Assembly that we hope will strengthen the Alliance movement and we are happy to have contributed to strengthening the Alliance family which has grown thanks to the participants of the Peles Assembly.
I am very sorry not to be able to shake hands with all of you.
I would just like to say that according to Romanian tradition, on the night of the summer solstice, June 21, the skies open and the spirit of the sky descends to earth while that of the earth rises to the sky. So I wish you a good night full of sharing.

Thank you to the translators.

I would like to express my warm and special thanks to Betty Nguyen, Paola Baril, Dacian Ciolos, Valérie Villemin-Ciolos, Avram Fitiu, Manuelle Glasman, Rémi Boulongne, Codruta Marian, Radu Marian, Sorin Ciolos, Cosmin Barda and the personnel of Happy Tour.

Appendix 1: 2004 Campaign

Proposal of a joint project with a concrete objective in view to continuing our exchanges.

A campaign: "What Europe do we want?", a project for society and civilisation.

Finalities:
•	Organise voicing opinion within institutions;
•	Build relations between the different sectors of civil society and European countries; 
•	Fuel debate between European peoples on a project for Europe in the perspective of globalisation;
•	Propose participatory democracy (to put forward proposals and not merely oppose) at continental level;
•	Develop anti-neo-liberalism (combat economic globalisation, the market)

A two level methodology:
•	Constitution of debating groups on every territory of the continent to rethink society (the human condition) and outline a project for society.

•	Start collecting signatures to support a proposal to institute a law of popular initiative in view to demanding the European Parliament to incorporate the right to hold referendums and promote popular initiatives at European level in the European Constitution.

The debate groups will focus on topics and approaches that differ according to the sectors of civil society that organise them (labour unions, ecologists, community organisations, specialised NGOs, networks against globalisation, etc).

The elements for reflection and proposal-making that we formulated at the Peles meeting could be gathered and used to weave alliances with other networks, groups and associations in each country and could serve as the basis for the debate groups.

Appendix 2: Information cauldron

The information cauldron 

The activities of the political renewal workshop led to working on the need to review the principles and applications of democracy in our society today, which is confronted by the hegemony of economic globalisation. 

Here, we mention these "new" social movements whose relatively recent arrival has been spurred by the need to react against the overpowering domination of global capitalism..

Obviously, being in contact with a large number of partners who think along similar lines, we became aware several months ago that this civil society in movement has to satisfy needs in order to progress.
In particular, as the co-ordinators of a Continental European meeting, several occasions confirmed to us that a vacuum existed regarding the European dimension of information.
The Internet has undoubtedly made it easier to mobilise this huge movement, responsible for increasingly frequent actions given intense media coverage, from Seattle to Genoa. However, the work done be each of us remains isolated while the indigestible amounts of information available to use hardly facilitate communication..

Thus, over the last few months, we have tried to identify this vacuum and verify our conclusions with the participants at Peles.
There is a need, considered urgent by some, to set up a structure for sharing information ON and created BY the social movements themselves and which are not hampered by linguistic problems.

This need is primarily felt at European level, i.e. for most of the people from the European Union, though we are unhappy with this restriction and are convinced that the continental dimension must be taken into account from the outset. This conviction was also confirmed in Romania.

The aim is to promote a structure for sharing information on social movements (the need for this structure was obviously apparent, though resources are required for it to exist).
The objective of this space would be to:
-	permit better circulation of information by avoiding fragmentation;
-	facilitate access to information for those who are obviously unable to follow events, still less the activities of social movements, but who are dissatisfied with the coverage given by the traditional press;
-	provide what is still called the "alternative press" with a space in which it provides meaningful information obtained straight from the source;
-	permit genuine interaction between persons working in the same direction and with the same ethics (exchange of experience, working methods, way of covering current affairs from an alternative standpoint, etc.);
-	avoid much time-wasting seeking pertinent information or learning of what is being done in social movements.
-	etc.
This structure would in no way be a press agency as such since it would not produce any information. Rather, it would be a virtual structure (certainly a Web site) acting as the common "cauldron" of all those who produce and diffuse information on and by civil society.

Why doesn't this structure exist already?
Quite simply because of the immediate problem of the time and cost involved in using information in a foreign language. The best Italian newspaper would be difficult to use in Hungary and vice-versa.
However, a considerable number of people write extremely interesting papers on all kinds of media (from organisation newsletters to weekly journals distributed at news-stands in a particular country). The few attempts that have been made to publish European newspapers over recent years have failed because they have been new products issued by the traditional press whose contents were written like filling in a stencil, requiring salaried journalists to write them. What is more, these journalists did not cover the views of civil society but simply repeated the "usual" news.

Since we participate in this same vein of civil society willing to make alternative proposals, we think that it is important to satisfy this need which fits perfectly in the quest to build a European civil society. This is the first objective of our works (as a topical workshop of the governance focus and also as a participant of the new-born "Peles network" of the European geocultural group, still in gestation).
Indeed, creating a civil society requires using that which exists already to the full, so as to bring to light the active elements that form the basis of this society. We must focus our attention on it in order to make its activities known. Thus we can promote its development, widen its scope and stimulate new forms of involvement, new "vocations". Civil society needs co-operation so it can act, recognise itself and bring its reflections and proposals to influence the future with more weight.

The partners likely to be interested and involved in this structure are many and various: for example, the editors and journalists of national journals such as Carta, the voluntary editors of newsletters (several were present at Peles, in particular Momo), alternative press agencies (such as Indymedia) and the managers of Web sites which take a similar approach (Samizdat, Politis).
However, no formal list of interested parties exists as yet, since the first objective is to spread this information to the largest number of people possible. Demand is already evident.

What form should this "cauldron" take?
As with any project aimed at sharing, a few rules are obviously required to avoid a situation in which everyone draws from the well without replenishing it. 
This structure will be used as the receptacle of all types of information that the partners feel is important to share, whether it be an article, unpublished paper or otherwise.
The main work to carried out is to make this information visible, either publicly or limited to the persons having expressed their interest in this structure (subscription?). Certain articles and information may then be translated either because they have been selected (in the case of several articles being available on the same subject) or because they have been requested by a user partner. 
The aim is to set up a network of translators capable, if necessary, of rewriting information so that it satisfies culturally different expectations (here the question is not simply to translate information but to "adapt" it to the target culture, as with the attempt made by the Alliance workshop working on the Charter).

From the methodological point of view, rules are obviously needed for the users since the cauldron will be set up for them, but they must also ensure that the initiative lasts. It is also important to innovate regarding its operation, i.e. a means must be found of supplying the cauldron that does not rely solely on the goodwill and availability of its users (two elements that generally dry up quickly).
Therefore, should a tacit agreement of reciprocity be made that obliges the partners to fuel the cauldron when they want to obtain information? 
What is more, one or more good "information mediators" should be involved who are well informed about what is happening in Europe and can encourage partners to contact their neighbours and persons working on related subjects in order to spread the word about these activities (since not all the actors will be necessarily good producers of information).

In the meantime, all these practical aspects must be organised following debate with all the partners.

Paris, 17 August 2001
Manola

NB: The "we" used in the text essentially refers to Sandro Guiglia and myself.

European Continent
 Breakthroughs

The breakthrough document of the European continental group was drafted by all the co-ordinators of the four topics and the assembly organisers. These breakthroughs are not intended to be an accurate rendition of the debates at Peles. However, we have sought to organise the different proposals that came to light during the five days of the assembly on the basis of the reports, notes, minutes, and various workshop documents.

Far from being able to write genuine proposal booklets, apart from the Rural World topic, which began several years ago, we wanted to contribute to the Alliance World Assembly a document that deals with all the subjects covered in Romania. Thus we have written short paragraphs in personal (and therefore subjective) style on the most transversal subjects of the four topics. The participants of the European meeting will doubtless search for the exact arguments of their workshops; however, this short document is the result of collective analysis.

Furthermore, we might ask what these breakthroughs touch upon in terms of European characteristics. Our ideas and notions (still not innovative enough) identified in this document do not only concern the European continent but also the world. The similarity between our driving principles and values and those of many citizens around the world is hardly surprising. On the other hand, our objectives will be fulfilled when Europe becomes a solid regional entity capable of managing its relations with the other regions of the world in conformity with the rules we propose. If these breakthroughs appear to be neither novel nor specific to Europe, it is because we have sought, despite everything, to achieve consensus so that each of the participants is able to identify with and adhere to them.

We recommend readers to refer to the general report of the European continental assembly, whicht sets out the proposals and describes the different ideas that came to light in detail.

Manola Gardez Rauss
October 2001

The political unity of continental Europe as a region 

Continental Europe must build its political unity in order to become a centre for regional governance.
Achieving this requires: 
•	Accelerating the passage from economic and monetary union to political union;
•	Defining a political project and rules in the form of a constitutive charter, with the participation of the future members and European civil society;
•	Playing an independent political role to influence the world governance and implement a policy for peace;
•	Developing European political opinion (the political identity of European citizens). 

The purpose of this European regional governance is to contribute towards wider, world governance whose optimum configuration would be polycentric, with agreements between regions. Each region would be given the power of exemplariness, in order to bypass vetoes by vested interests to block progress (the example of the UN Security Council), and thereby counter the current system based on trials of strength. 

A new concept of citizenship 
(Towards a clerkless society)

With forever more abstentions at elections, parties with fewer and fewer members and an increasing number of lawsuits aimed at politicians, one might imagine that the foundations of democracy are quaking. Well, they are not. All these changes express the difficulty of answering one basic transformation: the search for a clerkless society.

Until recently, the "citizen" placed his or her confidence regarding many situations in disinterested and uncontested experts: they entrusted their health to the medical profession, the education of their children to the teaching profession, the production of their food to farmers and their thoughts to political parties, etc. Their own judges, dictators of methods and the persons dispensing them, these professions were entrusted with a ‘mission’. Without going to the other extreme of thinking that human beings are only interested in profit, nobody believes that they are motivated only by the pure desire to fulfil a mission. The fact that there are no more clerks is a good thing. 

These institutions and persons should accept reconsidering their roles, seeing them contractually rather than as a mission.
In return, it is obvious that citizens must take on more duties. They will have to take responsibility for the consequences of the decisions made with them, since then nobody can plead ignorance or powerlessness. Citizens will have a voice in their own destinies, with no more clerks to speak in their name.

Governance based on active/participatory subsidiarity and solidarity 

Institutional subsidiarity 
This means that all decisions are taken at the level closest to the issue concerned, and thus the people involved. However, six conditions must be satisfied to check that the level of decision is the right one:
•	Financial viability: the most financially advantageous level.
•	Solidarity between territories (local authorities) and within the same territory: compensatory and distribution mechanisms.
•	Level of knowledge of the issue: knowledge diffused by the media and also the diffusion of the technical knowledge required.
•	Respect for the opinion of minorities when taking decisions
•	Integrate the notion of participation in decision-making and evaluation procedures (participation by citizens and civil society).
•	Efficient decision-making and agreement of the local community. This implies preliminary work and evaluation afterwards.

Participatory subsidiarity
All political power must ask for the participation by citizens and/or civil society, and it must ensure the collaboration of the administration.
It must therefore dialogue with civil society and set up a participation process so that any citizen can participate in the reflection and decision-making involved. This participation by citizens requires a mediator who would ensure they are trained and that what they say is taken into account.

The role of civil society 

Current political organisations do not generally associate citizens in their actions or in formulating their decisions. This "shortcoming" is offset spontaneously by citizens who organise themselves into pressure and action groups. This is the vast though often loosely structured movement known as civil society. It represents new forms of collective action. The 19th century produced labour unions, co-operatives and the scout movement while the 20th century produced organisations and public opinion campaigns. 
Today as with yesterday, this type of organisation is gradually finding its place. These social relays that compose civil society have the following essential functions:
1)	They stimulate a powerful desire to do voluntary work,
2)	They play a crucial intellectual, cultural and social role,
3)	They bring issues to light on the national and international stages,
4)	And they participate in formulating alternative solutions and stimulate numerous ideas.
Their importance is already known, at national and international levels, where civil society organises major conferences and counter-summits in opposition to the G8, for example. The entire movement will continue to take form and clarify its relations with the other components of society: the administration, the private sector, unions, etc. In return, the new actors of civil society need to apply and codify the duties that belong to every public actor.   

Evolution of democracy

Since its creation, the construction of Europe construction has been achieved by enlightened men and women; however, democracy has played no part in the process. However, things have changed, spurred by the combined effects of societal complexification, a higher level of knowledge, the effects of economic globalisation, the growing insistence for democracy by citizens, etc. The elitist argument that citizens are incapable of making complex decisions (on subjects that require technical knowledge, such as GMOs) falls flat once they have the information permitting them to acquire such knowledge. The exasperation felt about politics is a consequence rather than a cause of the opaqueness and inefficiency of the representative democratic procedures in force. 
To answer the need for more democracy, and to cease relying on our establishments, we propose instilling the idea of "democratic quality" in society. This implies that representative democracy should be completed and strengthened by participatory democracy at different levels, such as Consensus Conferences, etc. This also implies networking and information tools (Internet, electronic forums).
This leads to the question of the cost of these procedures and of the "price" of democracy. Part of the public budget (for example, of the European Commission) could be allocated (in the same way as for elections). This change would be in the public interest and taking this "wealth" into account (agreement and social cohesion) can hardly be considered as a non-productive expense. 

Basic income 

After nearly thirty years of increasing structural unemployment in Europe, full employment has become a myth. We need to examine alternative solutions such as the basic income.

Unemployment leads to irreversible situations of social exclusion (a person excluded from the labour market for too long has great difficulty in becoming reintegrated), whereas a solution avoiding any exclusion by paying out a minimum basic income would allow everyone to return to the labour market if and when there is a shortage of labour. 
The basic income cannot be compared to other conventional social revenues that are invariably linked to specific social conditions; on the contrary, it would be unconditional and non-discriminatory.

Freedom of movement and opening up borders 

Preventing national immigration policies from reflecting the general attitudes of politicians and the discretionary ones of administrative services cannot be achieved without harmonising the European Union's immigration and asylum policies. It must be considered on the basis of three observations:
- Although it is not an invasion, the pressure of migrations exists and is not about to decrease, 
- Controlling flows is impossible without infringing human rights.
- The effects caused by borders closing are harmful: it slows the fluidity of trade, increases clandestine immigration and fuels criminal organisations. 

Thus, rather than sticking to the dogma of tightening frontiers, the facts plead for opening them. Obviously this does not mean abandoning all controls: neither opening them without restriction, nor negating constitutional laws can be considered.
For most European citizens, this option that respects the right of human beings to circulate freely between countries is the cause for violent emotional reactions. Acting on these fears demands opening up a debate through which they can be expressed and exorcised. Such a debate would give Europe the opportunity to innovate and formulate policies that correspond to both its democratic ambitions and its future challenges.

Reversing the concept of productive work

Ulrich Beck said, "We must consider how democracy and social integration can be made possible without including the notion of work".
This entails dissociating social and individual recognition from employment and productivity. Respect should not only be given to work as a tradable value, all forms of activity should be recognised according to a scale that integrates social, cultural and political dimensions too. 
The right to human dignity is still based on work and social recognition is founded only on the "productive" activity it involves. Meaningful production of all kinds should be given social recognition and be taken into account by the community as a whole. 

A new conception of territorial management 

Today, the management of rural territories is practised with both the ideas and tools of yesterday. Worse still, we are unable to perceive the territory and its natural resources as an object of management in itself. We manage cities and towns, roads and agriculture and we manage their effects on the territory, more or less. However, surprisingly no approach is taken to view the territory as whole, something that is essential since Europe has such limited space and a very large population. In the future, we should focus our action on the rare and disputed commodities constituted by the territory and its resources. 

We must above all think of this territory as fulfilling a host of functions, not as juxtaposed ones (with spaces set aside for conservation and others for production) but as integrated functions. Each part of the territory must fulfil the largest number of functions possible: environmental, production, social, etc. The form that Europe takes tomorrow depends on this capacity to integrate these functions efficiently.

This implies radical change since it entails subordinating economic policies to territorial management. It is manifestly absurd at present to continue an independent agricultural policy. 

The current failure to open up debate at European level has undermined local territorial policies. The fine principle of subsidiarity has been made null and void by the principle of non-interference with competition, which leads to abandoning (public) incentives as coercive actions. (Everyone is afraid of applying the rules to the letter for fear of competition from neighbouring regions). European-wide negotiation of territorial policies is now indispensable. 

Modification of how wealth is calculated 

The mechanism generally used for measuring and/or comparing the quality of life and well being of our societies, i.e. GNP (Gross Domestic Product) is no longer adequate.
-	Firstly, although GNP is the total sum of goods and services produced by the national economy in one year, it is unable to express the distribution of this wealth.
-	Secondly, GNP is generally limited to recording the trade of services and products of the formal economy, that is to say official markets, while it excludes informal activities. This method of measurement benefits societies in which human activity is a remunerated and marketed service. However, the activities of traditional societies remain family oriented, or they are practised within clans and tribes, and are therefore not accounted for by GNP. In other words, anonymity in our societies has a positive impact on GNP, whereas activities that contribute to social cohesion do not.
-	Lastly, GNP is a blind indicator. It makes no distinction between the growth generated by industry and services that satisfy consumer demand and the increasingly important sector of economic activity that merely serves to offset the destructive consequences of industrialisation. In other words, the industrial system benefits from the very anomalies that it causes. It is obvious that this formula that permits increasing the GNP is increasingly a zero sum game.
For all these reasons, we ask our political leaders to give up this mechanism and use other indicators such as HDI (Human Development Indicators) that does not only take into account economic values, but also values such as health, access to education and culture and the environmental situation of a society.

Renovating education

Education is the keystone in the transformation of mentalities and it underlies our project for society. Indeed, collective change and individual transformation are linked and interdependent. In view of this, education must have several objectives:
- Firstly, education must no longer only focus on awarding professional qualifications, but, taking the perspective of a post-wage-earning society, it must be restored as a "free" service and teach people how to use their spare time.
- It must then educate all citizens to be aware of their civic responsibilities and teach them how to analyse their social and political environments.
- Lastly, it must trigger a change of values by educating citizens to have open minds. This requires leaving behind purely national visions of education (e.g., nationalistic teaching of history in schools) in order to instil a more open, European vision. It also entails recognising the diversity and cultural plurality of individuals. This is the first step for integrating and recognising the other and ridding ourselves of fear: We say no to a Europe of fear!

The transformation of international relations (co-development and contracts)

Europe currently imposes its economic and political interests as well as its Western system of democracy in its development activities. The aim is, on the contrary to change this outlook and demand that Europe take a contractual approach to all its development actions.
These contracts would consist of going beyond the current diplomatic logic of international relations based on trials of strength and subordination. Performed in a spirit of partnership, the contract should set out the rights and duties of each party, clearly explaining the interest of each of them. 
The concept of development would therefore change into one of co-development. 
European civil society should convey social and political aspects in its co-development contracts while, upstream, it should mould public opinion and promote this concept.
Europe could use this contractual method in an independent way in other regions of the world, and with respect to other issues, in view to creating polycentric world governance. (Why not draw up a contract between two regions to reduce the greenhouse effect, without being held up while waiting for world-wide consensus.)

Participants list by thematic group

1. Thematic group : Democratic European Governance 

Co-ordinators :
Sandro Guiglia
Elise Massicard

Name	First name	Sex	Language	Country	
Asadov	Farda	M	ENG	Azerbaijan	
Bezirjyan	Khachatur	M	ENG	Armenia	
Bochorishvili	Tinatin	F	ENG	Georgia	
Brodesco	Maria	F	ENG	Moldavia	
Chamkhi	Fathi	M	FR	Tunisia	
Fateyev	Vladimir	M	ENG	Belarus	
Fontela	Emilio	M	FR	Spain	
Georgiev	Gordan	M	FR	Macedonia	
Hammer	Ferenc	M	ENG	Hungary	
Harmat	Gal	F	ENG	Israel	
Isemann	Franz	M	ENG	Germany	
Jirsa	Jakub	M	ENG	Czech Republic	
Lipski	Andrzej	M	ENG	Poland	
Martinovic	Momcilo	M	ENG	Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia	
Mazzoni	Philippe	M	FR	France	
Mezher	Zeina	F	ENG	Lebanon	
Olteanu	Ion	M	FR	Romania	
Ozel	Seden	F	ENG	Turkey	
Pampalk	Josef 	M	FR/ENG	Austria	
Paulsen	Claus	M	ENG	Denmark	
Richter	Melita	F	ENG	Croatia	
Shushko	Oleksander	M	ENG	Ukraine	
Umbraziunas	Marius	M	ENG	Lithuania	
Vanden Eede	Stéphane	M	FR/ENG	Belgium	
Zizi	Mohamed	M	FR	Algeria	

2. Thematic group : Work and social organisation

Co-ordinators :
Hans Harms
Hugues Puel

Name	First name	Sex	Language	Country	
Aksakoglu	Yigit	M	ENG	Turkey	
Ateek	Mustafa	M	FR	Palestine	
Balasoiu	Ioana	F	FR	Belgium	
Benguerna	Mohamed	M	FR	Algeria	
Bota	Patricia	F	ENG	Romania	
Brunavs	Zigmars	M	ENG	Latvia	
Cerniauskiene	Nendre	F	ENG	Lithuania	
Chitashvili	Marine	F	ENG	Georgia	
Dos Santos	Jose-Hipolito	M	FR	Portugal	
Dumitru	Magda	F	ENG	Romania	
Jacquier	Ghislaine	F	FR	Switzerland	
Lafont	Antxon	M	FR	Pays Basque	
Larsen	Steen Nepper	M	ENG	Denmark	
Leit	Bent	M	ENG	Denmark	
Lukjanau	Juras	M	FR	Belarus	
Marques	Casimiro	M	FR	Portugal	
Meyer	Ruedi	M	FR	Switzerland	
Perelson	Ameet	M	ENG	Israel	
Raventos	Daniel	M	FR	Spain	
Tovmasyan	Melineh	F	ENG	Armenia	
Tsobanoglou	George	M	ENG	Greece	
Weissmann	Robert	M	ENG	Austria	
Yazidi	Mimoun	M	FR	Morocco	
Zeumann	André	M	ENG	Germany	

3. Thematic group : European rural world and sustainability

Co-ordinators :
Philippe Cacciabue
Iain Farquhar

Name	First Name	Sex	Language	Country	
Asllani	Manjola	F	ENG/FR	Albania	
Babayev	Vugar	M	ENG	Azerbaijan	
Bedoret	Hugues	M	FR	Belgium	
Cherif	Abdallah	M	FR	Tunisia	
Crnogorac	Stevan	M	ENG	Croatia	
Crozu	Aurica	F	FR	Moldavia	
Dabrowski	Piotr	M	FR	Poland	
Drimalova	Karla	F	ENG	Czech Republic	
Escribano	Sergio	M	FR	Spain	
Giorgiu	Francisc	M	FR	Romania	
Gulbe	Inguna	F	ENG	Latvia	
Hirschmann	Ilse	F	ENG	Austria	
Josing	Marje	F	ENG	Estonia	
Kikodze	Zaal	M	ENG	Georgia	
Koubratova	Monika	F	FR	Bulgaria	
Lakka	Laokratia	F	FR	Greece	
Luthi	Markus	M	FR	Switzerland	
Ortensi	Paola	F	ENG	Italy	
Pislar	Sylvie	F	FR	France	
Poveda	Susana	F	FR	Spain	
Pysarenko	Svitlana	F	ENG	Ukraine	
Rindal	Einar	M	ENG	Norway	
Rindal	Unni	F	ENG	Norway	
Scharipov	Scharip	M	ENG	Russia	
Stauder	Marta	F	ENG	Hungary	
Verschuur	Gerwin	M	ENG	Netherlands	
Wathelet	Daniel	M	FR	Belgium	
Ziaka	Yolanda	F	FR	Greece	

4. Thematic group : Migration and Cross-cultural Citizenship

Co-ordinators :
Karine Boyer
Paul Oriol

Name	First Name	Sex	Language	Country	
Abdel-Samad	Ziad	M	FR/ENG	Lebanon	
Bauer	Henri	M	FR	France	
Bouguerra	Sabiha	F	FR	Tunisia	
Bryde	Henrik	M	ENG	Denmark	
Calborean	Marian	M	FR	Romania	
Fomina	Joanna	F	ENG	Poland	
Frondizi	Celina	F	ENG	Italy	
Gyurova 	Elena	F	ENG	Bulgaria	
Kvitsiani	Natia	F	ENG	Georgia	
Kleiven	Knut	M	ENG/FR	Norway	
Laubeova	Laura	F	ENG	Czech Republic	
Llopis Falcon	Henriette	F	FR	Spain	
Luntumbue	Michel	M	FR	Belgium	
Mark	Laetitia	F	FR/ENG	Romania	
Mesaric	Rebeka	F	ENG	Croatia	
Rashid	Amina	F	FR	Egypt	
Riedmann	Sylvia	F	ENG/FR	Austria	
Rouhana	Malaky	F	ENG	Israel	
Rzavins	Aleksandrs	M	ENG	Latvia	
Sankovic	Vasil	M	ENG	Belarus	
Savukynas	Virginijus	M	FR	Lithuania	
Savych	Liliya	F	ENG	Ukraine	
Tabacki	Teodora	F	ENG	Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia	
Ter Ellen	Heleen	F	ENG/FR	Netherlands	
Viegas	Maria	F	FR	Portugal	
Vogt	Birgit	F	ENG	Germany	
Wagner	Janos	M	ENG	Hungary	
Yildiz	Ali Arslan	M	ENG	Turkey	

Country	Name	First name	Group	Sex	Profession	
ALBANIA	Asllani	Manjola	Rur	F	Student in economics and rural policies.	
ALGERIA	Benguerna	Mohamed	Work	M	Sociologist – researcher	
	Zizi	Mohamed	Gov	M	Journalist international dept. of the Algiers daily paper Le Matin. Member of AREA-ED Association for Reflection, Exchange and Action for Environment and Development. 	
GERMANY	Isemann	Franz	Gov	M	Retired German teacher. Member of the "Mehr demokratie" citizens’ organisation.	
	Vogt	Birgit	Mig	F	Documentary film and video maker, working in Spain at present.	
	Zeumann	Andre	Work	M	Social worker	
ARMENIA	Bezirjyan	Khachatur	Gov	M	Director of The School For Public Administration. Ex-member of Parliament.	
	Tovmasyan	Melineh	Work	F	Director of the Institute for Democracy and Human Rights	
AUSTRIA	Hirschmann	Ilse	Rur	F	Artist	
	Pampalk	Josef 	Gov	M	Professor in African Studies	
	Riedmann	Sylvia	Mig	F	Political scientist	
	Weissmann	Robert	Work	M	Network administrator	
AZERBAIJAN	Asadov	Farda	Gov	M	Executive director of the Open Society Institute. Responsible for the Arab Countries’ History and Economics Department at the Institute of Oriental Studies.	
	 Babayev  	Vugar	Rur	M	Economist. Vice-president of the Agrobusiness Association of Ganja (rural development)	
BELARUS	Fateyev	Vladimir	Gov	M	Assistant director of the Institute for Economic Sciences 	
	Lukjanau	Juras	Work	M	Regional co-ordinator for the Centre for Civil Society 	
	Sankovic	Vasil	Mig	M	Project co-ordinator for the "International Contact" NGO (democracy and civil society).	
BELGIUM	Balasoiu	Ioana	Work	F	Head of mission at the Responsible Consumer Network	
	Bedoret	Hugues	Rur	M	Head of mission at Wallonia Inter Environment on agricultural affairs. 	
	Lutumbue	Michel	Mig	M	Head of mission at Quinoa (NGO for education for development).	
	Vanden Eede	Stéphane	Gov	M	Head of mission at the Foundation for Future Generations.	
	Wathelet	Daniel	Rur	M	Head of mission at the Wallonia Rural Foundation	
BULGARIA	Gyurova 	Elena	Mig	F	Sociologist. 	
	Koubratova	Monika	Rur	F	Economist, member of the Bruges Group.	
CROATIA	Crnogorac	Stevan	Rur	M	Agronomist.	
	Mesaric	Rebeka	Mig	F	Assistant-researcher at the Institute for Immigration and Ethnic Group Studies (IMIN)	
	Richter	Melita	Gov	F	Sociologist. Cultural mediator for education in Italy.
Editor and author of works on environment and urban areas and on the Balkans. 	
DENMARK	Bryde	Henrik	Mig	M	Project leader.	
	Larsen	Steen Nepper	Work	M	Professor at Roskilde University Centre and the Copenhagen Business School 
Free-lance journalist (at Politiken a Danish newspaper)	
	Leit	Bent	Work	M	Social worker, nursing auxiliary.	
	Paulsen	Claus	Gov	M	In industry.	
EGYPT	Rashid	Amina	Mig	F	Professor of French and comparative literature – Cairo University	
SPAIN	Escribano	Sergio	Rur	M	Agronomics student, member of the CERAI Association (Centre for Rural Studies and International Agriculture). At present working at the FPH.	
	Fontela	Emilio	Gov	M	Economist, member of the Lisbon group	
	Llopis Falcon	Henriette	Mig	F	Teacher, Association for the Care of Immigrants and Refugees (ACAIR)	
	Poveda	Susana	Rur	F	Agricultural student, co-ordinator of the electronic forum on food consumption managed by CERAI  (Centre for Rural Studies and International Agriculture).	
	Raventos	Daniel	Work	M	Professor at Barcelona University, expert in "minimum revenues".	
ESTONIA	Josing	Marje	Rur	F	Director of the Estonian Institute for Economic Studies. 	
France	Bauer	Henri	Mig	M	Researcher in social sciences – co-ordinator of the Alliance’s inter-religion college 	
	Mazzoni	Philippe	Gov	M	Consultant at the Peace School, at present working on armament conversion.	
	Pislar	Sylvie	Rur	F	Agronomics engineer, working at the FNAB (National federation for biological agriculture).	
GEORGIA	Bochorishvili	Tinatin	Gov	F	Professor in Political Sciences, researcher at the Institute for Political Studies, Science Academy, President of the Association for Peace Research, Tbilissi. 	
	Chitashvili	Marine	Work	F	Academic, psychologist, director of the social sciences support programme at the Open Society Foundation - Georgia.	
	Kikodze	Zaal	Rur	M	Archaeologist, co-ordinator of a communal development centre for Chechen refugees, practicing agriculture.	
	Kvitsiani	Natia	Mig	F	Historian, national co-ordinator for the International Immigrant Organisation.	
GREECE	Lakka	Laokratia		F	Biologist, Doctor in Educational Sciences at the Education Research Centre of the Greek National Education Ministry.	
	Tsobanoglou	George	Work	M	Sociology professor – Aegean University.	
	Ziaka	Yolanda	Rur	F	Co-ordinator of the Alliance’s "Education to environment" workshop 	
HUNGARY	Hammer	Ferenc	Gov	M	Sociologist, Organisation for Participative Democracy.	
	Stauder	Marta	Rur	F	Economist, Institute of Research and Information on Agriculture and Economics	
	Wagner	Janos	Mig	M	Sociologist, Partners Hungary Foundation	
ISRAEL	Harmat	Gal	Gov	F	Member of a women’s rights NGO, co-ordinator for women’s groups.	
	Perelson  	Ameet	Work	M	Teacher	
	Rouhana	Malaky	Mig	F	Civil engineer, member of the Union of Arab Community Associations, member of Assiwar, an Arab feminist movement giving support to victims of sexual abuse.	
ITALY	Frondizi	Celina	Mig	F	Lawyer, member of the "Candelaria Donne Immigrate" women’s association, working in the
immigrant domain, especially for women.	
	Ortensi	Paola	Rur	F	Confederation of Italian Farmers	
LATVIA	Brunavs	Zigmars	Work	M	Managing Director of a media agency.	
	Gulbe	Inguna	Rur	F	Director of the centre for agricultural promotion and marketing at the Latvian National Institute of Agrarian Economics. 	
	Rzavins	Aleksandrs	Mig	M	Militant and researcher at the International League for Human Rights in Latvia.	
LEBANON	Abdel-Samad	Ziad	Mig	M	Executive director of the Arab NGO network for development. 	
	Mezher	Zeina	Gov	F	Research assistant at the West Asian Economic and Social Commission, co-ordinator of the NGO "Université sans frontières" 	
LITHUANIA	Cerniauskiene	Nendre	Work	F	Lecturer at a law school	
	Savukynas	Virginijus	Mig	M	Assistant at the Institute of Culture and Art, editor of the social sciences column in the “Artium Unitio” electronic revue.	
	Umbraziunas	Marius	Gov	M	Student in International Relations and Political Sciences  - Project co-ordinator at the Centre for European Integration Studies.	
MACEDONIA	Georgiev	Gordan	Gov	M	Student in political sciences.	
MOROCCO	Yazidi	 Mimoun	Work	M	Doctor of Economics in France, treasurer of the Organisation “Savoir et Développement” (Knowledge and Development) 	
MOLDAVIA	Brodesco	Maria	Gov	F	Doctor, NGO Rural Social Initiatives.	
	Crozu	Aurica	Rur	F	Agent for development and specialized credit in micro-finance for rural areas	
NORWAY	Kleiven	Knut	Mig	M	Teacher for immigrants, people requesting political asylum and refugees 	
	Rindal	Unni  	Rur	F 	Writer, teacher, farmer.	
	Rindal	Einar	Rur	M	Farmer 	
PALESTINE	Ateek	Mustafa	Work	M	 Head of training, project leader for integration in France.	
NETHERLANDS	Ter Ellen	Heleen	Mig	F	Trained in translation, international relations and intercultural communication. Head of mission for cultural affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.	
	Verschuur	Gerwin	Rur	M	Trained in agriculture and political sciences, researcher at the Centre for Agriculture and the Environment, Utrecht.	
PAYS BASQUE	Lafont	Antxon	Work	M	Company executive.	
POLAND	Dabrowski	Piotr	Rur	M	Engineer in agronomics, ex-agricultural trade unionist and civil servant at the Ministry of Agriculture. Central European agriculture forum at Warsaw.	
	Fomina	Joanna	Mig	F	English philology student at Krakow University.	
	Lipski	Andrzej	Gov	M	Farmer, deputy mayor.	
PORTUGAL	Dos Santos	Jose-Hipolito	Work	M	Socio-economist, co-founder of a services cooperative (SEIES) that works with the women and populations in poor neighbourhoods	
	Marques	Casimiro	Work	M	Academic – Research topics: urban poverty, exclusion from the labour market	
	Viegas	Maria	Mig	F	Trained in sociology and social work, participates in developing micro-credit experiments in Portugal.	
FED. REP. OF YUGOSLAVIA	Martinovic	Momcilo	Gov	M	Teacher, Association for Democratic Prosperity.	
	Tabacki	Teodora	Mig	F	Student in philosophy and political sciences 	
CZECH REP. 	Drimalova	Karla	Rur	F	Agronomist, researcher, Young Farmers Society.	
	Jirsa	Jakub	Gov	M	Parliamentary assistant, Public Administrative Committee for Regional and Environmental Environment	
	Laubeova	Laura	Mig	F	Academic (European studies). Expert at the European Centre for Observation of Racial Prejudice and Xenophobia 	
ROMANIA	Calborean	Marian	Mig	M	Student. Member of a youth association.                    	
	Olteanu	Ion	Gov	M	Director of CENTRAS (Centre of resources for NGO’s) 	
	Dumitru	Magda	Work	F	Economics student at the Academy of Sciences.  	
	Mark	Laetitia	Mig	F	Teacher, Association "Rom women for our children"	
	Bota	Patricia	Work	F	Student.	
	Giurgiu	Francisc	Rur	M	Romanian Villages Operation	
RUSSIA	Scharipov	Scharip	Rur	M	Economist, Ministry of Agriculture of the Dagestan Republic (Russia).	
SWITZERLAND	Jacquier	Ghislaine	Work	F	Nurse, project for a nursing school in Albania, president of the association "Ecology and Economics for Durable Development".	
	Luthi	Markus	Rur	M	Farmer, president of "Rural Exchange and Durable Development" network (REDD), international consultant for agriculture and sustainable development.	
	Meyer	Ruedi	Work	M	High-school teacher, ethical shareholder. 	
TUNISIA	Bouguerra	Sabiha	Mig	F	French teacher. Member of Tunisian Association for women democrats and Tunisian women academics in research and development.	
	Chamkhi	Fathi	Gov	M	Academic and geographer. President of RAID (ATTAC-Tunisia) 	
	Cherif	Abdallah	Rur	M	Geography lecturer. 	
TURKEY	Aksakoglu	Yigit	Work	M	Project assistant at the Turkish Foundation for Economic and Social Studies, member of the AEGEE network (“Association des Etats Généraux de l'Europe”)	
	Ozel	Seden	Gov	F	Student at the Institute for International Studies at Geneva (MA). 	
	Yildiz	Ali Arslan	Mig	M	Student in sociology, member of Cem Vafky (Ngo) and the Association for Young Social-Democrats.	
UKRAINE	Pysarenko	Svitlana	Rur	F	Professor in Economics, director of an Agricultural Centre.	
	Savych	Liliya	Mig	F	Co-ordinator of the prevention and education production at the International Centre for women’s rights, “La Strada-Ukraine".	
	Shushko	Oleksander	Gov	M	Political analyst, director of the Centre for “Peace, Conversion and Foreign Policy”	
						
ORGANISATION
(France)	Baril	Paola		F	Responsible for relations with Eastern Europe at the FPH	
(Romania)	Boulongne	Rémi		M	Student	
(Romania)	Ciolos	Dacian		M	Specialist in agronomic research. Permanent member of the Agroecologia office	
(Romania)	Ciolos	Sorin		M	Student	
(Romania)	Ciolos Villemin	Valérie		F	Doctor in agronomic research	
(Romania)	Fitiu	Avram		M	President of Agroecologia 	
(France)	Gardez Rauss	Manola	(GOV)	F	Co-manager for the FPH’s AVE programme (Alliance) 	
(Romania)	Glasman	Manuellle		F	National delegate for the CICDA.	
(France)	Nguyen	Betty		F	Responsible for European relations at the FPH	
(Romania)	Marian	Codruta		F	Company executive	
(Romania)	Barda	Cosmin		M	Computer technician	
(Romania)	Marian	Radu		M	Company executive	
TOPIC GROUP LEADERS	Guiglia
(Italy)	Sandro		M	Co-ordinator of the "Governance" topic. Trained as an engineer, project co-ordinator with Algeria and the Polisario for the Italian NGO “Cospe” .	
(Germany)	Massicard	Elise		F	Assistant co-ordinator of the "Governance" topic. Doctor in Political Sciences. Co-ordinator for Inter-Citizen Conferences in the European network (CIC) 	
(Spain)	Harms	Hans		M	Co-ordinator of the "Work" topic. Doctor in philosophy and researcher in Social Sciences	
(France)	Puel	Hugues		M	Assistant co-ordinator of the "Work" topic. Specialist in labour economics, university lecturer. Association "Economy and humanism". 	
(France)	Cacciabue	Philippe		M	Co-ordinator of the "Rural World" topic. Works at la Bergerie (France), an FPH experimental farm.	
(United Kingdom)	Farquhar	Iain		M	Assistant co-ordinator of the "Rural World" topic. Independent researcher on questions of environment and development.	
(France)	Boyer	Karine		F	Co-ordinator of the "Migrations" topic. Specialist in intercultural psychology, training in urban problems. Inter-ministerial delegation for social economics.	
(France)	Oriol	Paul		M	Assistant co-ordinator of the "Migrations" topic. Retired doctor, 7 years of cooperation in Algeria, militant for questions of immigrant citizenship in France since 1972.	
COMMUNICATION
(Spain)	Olivella	Marti		M	Conference communications. Nova-Centre Association for Social Innovation 	
(Spain)	Olivella	Pau		M	Conference communications.  Student	
JOURNALISTS
(Italy)	Pascucci	Angela		F	Journalist at Il Manifesto (Italy)	
CONTINENTAL MESSENGERS	Muhozi
(Burundi)	Innocent		M	Correspondent for the African continental assembly	
(Canada)	Laplante	Maxime		M	Correspondent for the American continent conference	

The participants: distribution

The diversity of the participants' geographic origins, socio-professional backgrounds, age and sex played a key role in the thinking behind this meeting, and to a great extent guaranteed its credibility.

The objective set
The aim was to gather citizens from the European continent, the Maghreb region of North Africa, and the Middle East, who had been identified by the coordinators. The latter each worked in their own countries and made their choices according to diversity of age, sex and socio-professional background. The meeting was not intended to be an internal Alliance meeting. 

What was achieved
•	Number of participants 

Participants (including 13 from the Maghreb and the Middle East)	105	
Journalist (from the Italian newspaper Il Manifesto)	1	
Continental messengers (Quebec for the Americas and Burundi for Africa) also participated in all the works of the topic chosen by them.	2	
Subtotal	108	
Topical coordinators	8	
Communication team	2	
Organisation team (Franco-Romanian)	12	
TOTAL	130	

The aim of gathering 200 people from all over Europe and the Mediterranean basin was ambitious and we were aware of this from the beginning of the project. We fell rather short of the 200 people planned for initially. This number was the optimum insofar as it corresponded to the calculation of 4 participants from 50 countries (one person per topic debated, i.e. 4 per country), without counting the organisation teams in the wide meaning of the term. 
Quite quickly, we estimated that 39 countries would at least be represented, i.e. the fifty original countries less Azerbaijan, Byelorussia, Iceland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Moldavia, Slovakia, and Slovenia; given their size or the fact that they belong to a sub-region already represented. 

The participants at Peles came from 40 countries, though not every country was represented by four of its nationals. 
Although we were unable to get one person to participate per topic and by country (though this was not the aim for the countries of the Mediterranean basin, due to the pertinence of the topics according to interest) the result was relatively satisfactory given that there were 108 participants from so many countries.

•	Diversity according to age
Distribution by absolute value of the participants as a function of gender and age

	18-35 years	35-50 years	50 years +	Total	
Men	22	25	15	62	
Women	22	15	9	46	
Total	44	40	24	108	

Distribution by percentage of participants as a function of gender and age 

	18-35 years	35-50 years	50 years+	Total	
Men	35	40	24	100	
Women	48	33	20	100	
Total	41	37	22	100	
The share of "young" people is predominant (we often tried to privilege this group when given the choice) though it is very close to the "average" age group. The 50+ age group is less well represented, though far from absent.
Thus, overall, diversity regarding age was good. 

•	The balance between men/women.

	In absolute value	In percentage	
Men	62	57	
Women	46	43	
Total	108	100	

Perfect parity was not achieved but the balance was satisfactory.

•	Geocultural diversity

Distribution by absolute value of the participants by sub-region as a function of gender.		

	Men	Women	Total	
Southern Europe	10	8	18	
Northern Europe	15	6	21	
Central and Eastern Europe	14	16	30	
Newly Independent States	13	11	24	
Sub-total	52	41	93	
Maghreb region	5	1	6	
Middle East	3	4	7	
Africa	1		1	
The Americas	1		1	
Total	62	46	108	

Distribution in percentage of participants by sub-region (of the total number of participants)

	Men	Women	Total	
Southern Europe	11	9	19	
Northern Europe	16	6	23	
Central and Eastern Europe	15	17	32	
Newly Independent States	14	12	26	
Total	56	44	100	

Excluding the Central and Eastern European Countries, which contributed the largest share of participants, the share of the four sub-regions was quite well-balanced.
The number of countries grouped in these sub-regions varies, which explains why the Central and Eastern Europe group was proportionally larger, since it groups the most countries. 
It should be recalled that the participants came from 40 countries. However, among the countries we dearly wanted to see represented, Finland and Sweden were missing, while only one person from the United Kingdom participated (the co-ordinator of the Rural World work group, two others having cancelled a few days before the assembly) and Russia (only one participant, two others having cancelled very late).
Thus the objective of geocultural diversity was achieved.

Distribution in absolute value of participants by geocultural entity as a function of gender.

	Men	Women	Total	
European Union (EU)	22	14	36	
Candidate countries for accession to the EU	14	13	27	
Non-EU candidate countries 	16	14	30	
Total	52	41	93	

Distribution in percentage of participants by geopolitical entity (out of the total number of participants)

	Men	Women	Total		
European Union (EU)	42%	34%	39%		
Candidate countries for accession to the EU	27%	32%	29%		
Non-EU candidate countries 	31%	34%	32%		
Total	100%	100%	100%		

Even though the criterion of belonging to one of these geopolitical sub-groups was not decisive for identifying the participants, it was interesting to analyse this distribution in the light of the Assembly's medium and long term objectives (the "What Europe do we want" campaign carried out with the European parliamentary elections of 2004 in mind).
This distribution was also important for choosing a working methodology and preparing the material for discussion.

•	Socio-professional diversity

	In absolute value	By percentage	
Students	10	9	
Academics / teachers / researchers	32	30	
Journalists	3	3	
Associations/NGOs	40	37	
Social workers	6	6	
Farmers	4	4	
Others (including 1 company boss and 1 artist)	13	12	
TOTAL	108	100	

This distribution into different socio-professional categories was difficult since, understandably, the participants had several professional profiles.
The largest share (67%) was made up of academics and representatives of associations.
Thus the aim for socio-professional mix was not achieved.

•	Diversity between "allies/non-allies".

Out of 108 participants, 22 more or less knew the Alliance and/or the FPH, i.e. 20%.
Thus the aim of an assembly open to non-allies was fully attained.

Synthesis of the participants' evaluations

Foreword

64 out of the 108 participants of the European Continental Assembly had answered individually and returned the evaluation questionnaires by the closing date of September 15, 2001 (i.e. a response rate of 59%): 55 participants answered a ready printed questionnaire while 9 others sent us their own evaluations. Furthermore, some participants (sometimes the same as those who had answered individually) carried out group evaluations. The latter are not accounted for in this evaluation, since we do not know the exact number of persons involved; on the contrary, some of their recommendations have been taken into account.

This synthesis is based on 64 answers. It is made up of quantitative and qualitative elements in order to present a general and synthetic viewpoint on the one hand and, on the other, it gives a more detailed reflection of the wealth of the evaluations and comments.

The quantitative evaluation, which reflects the viewpoint expressed most often, is presented as per the order of the evaluation questionnaire, at the beginning of each heading in the grey part. 

The qualitative evaluation gives a synthesis of the comments made, without taking into account rates of identical answers. Thus it does not reflect the general point of view of the participants, though it does reflect that of some of them. This evaluation follows the quantitative evaluation.

Last are the recommendations expressed by certain participants, sometimes in the form of quotations.

We have not spent time on the headings, which the participants found satisfactory (even though they are very flattering for us!). However, we have focused on what the participants felt worked less well in order to learn from these shortcomings and work towards enriching our knowledge, hence the interest of the qualitative evaluation. 

I. Logistical organisation 

	Number of answers	Good	Average	Poor	? ? ?	
Supply and quality of information on transport, accommodation, technical considerations, etc.	54    

	47

87%	6

11%	1

2%		

	Number of answers	Good	Average	Poor	? ? ?	
The site of Peles
	56	56
100%				
Accommodation	57	43 
75%	13
23%	1
2%		
Meals	57	43
75%	12
21%	2
4%		
Coffee breaks	55	46
84%	8
15%	1
1%		
Secretariat	54	47
87%	7
13%			
Reception	55	48
87%	7
13%			
Availability of computers	51	14
27%	22
43%	13
26%		
Visit to Brasov	55	16
29%	23
42%	14
25%		
End of assembly party	56	43
77%	11
20%			
General atmosphere of the assembly	55	44
80%	11
20%			

Appreciation of computer availability was average often due to poor Internet connections.
The visit to Brasov was rather spoilt by rain.
The organisation team scored well because of its efficiency and unflappability. 

II. Organisation of the content

•	II.1 – Electronic forum

	Number of answers 	Yes	No	
Did you send your presentation to the forum?	53	30            57%	23            43%	

	Number of answers 	Yes	No	
Did you send contributions to the forum?	53	7             13%	46           87%	

Since most of the participants had not taken part in the forum, they ignored the section below devoted to it, although it could have concerned them. This is probably due to the poor presentation of the evaluation questionnaire grid which mixed elements concerning the forum with general information, whatever the media.

If not, why?
Total number of respondents: 37

Reasons linked to the participant's incapacity: 

Lack of time 	14	
Lack of time to formulate in-depth reflections 	1	
The participant received information too late 	8	
The participant was identified too late (the forum had already been closed) 	9	
No Internet connection, no computer 	5	
Problems with speaking another language	4	
The participant did not receive the participation request 	2	
This type of communication is new for the participant 	2	
The participant did not know the forum existed 	1	

Reasons for doubt among the participants:

Poor or no knowledge of the Alliance and the participants (of the forum and the meeting in Romania) 	3	
The topics were too general and wide-ranging	3	
The participants must know each other first before participating in the electronic forum	3	
The participant did not have a clear idea of the type of contribution he/she could make 	2	
The participant did not understand the importance of the forum in the assembly process 	2	
The contributions were not stimulating 	1	
The subjects were too narrow 	1	
The participant did not feel sufficiently knowledgeable 	1	
The participant felt him/herself to be too expert, the debate appeared to be unrealistic 	1	
Refusal to give supposed legitimacy to on-line democracy 	1	
The participant thought it was too late to participate 	1	
The participant did not know that it his/her presentation was necessary on the forum	1	

The reason most often given for failure to participate in the forum was lack of time. Lack of time to read the many messages (even though they were mostly presentations) on the one hand, and lack of time to formulate a contribution requiring analysis and reflection on the other.
Some participants felt that setting up an electronic forum BEFORE the Peles assembly was very useful insofar as it allowed the participants to get to know each other and identify the topics that were to be debated at Peles. 
Other people were not aware that the forum was part of the physical meeting, the latter being the final stage of the work carried out on the electronic forum during the previous six months.
Lastly, certain people were sceptical as to the usefulness of the forum, arguing that the participants did not know each other, the general nature of the subjects and contributions, and the lack of experience and familiarity with the tool. Certain persons even went as far as saying that the forum was ill-suited for long detailed debates.

	Number of answers	Good	Average	Poor	? ? ?	
Electronic forum
						
Quality of the reference texts	42	21
50%	14
33%		7
17%	
Co-ordination	43	19
44%	10
23%	5
12%	9
21%	
Usefulness of the forum for those who participated 	42	20
48%	5
12%	6
14%	11
26%	
Archiving of contributions on the web 	44	25
57%	7
16%	5
11%	7
16%	
Archiving of working documents on the web	43	25
58%	8
19%	4
9%	6
14%	

	Number of answers	Yes	No	
Did you consult the contributions to the forum before your departure?	29	23             79%	6                21%	

Recommendations 

 Improve identification of the subjects for discussion on the forum; only publish very concise contributions so that everyone has enough time to read them.
 Some persons emphasised that the incorporation of participants at very different times of the process prevented the forum from attaining the objectives set for it, i.e. preparation, in the wide meaning of the term, of the Peles assembly. They say that the forum should have been used to provide basic technical information to allow everyone (in and outside the EU) to intervene more efficiently in the debates (e.g., what is a territory, the European political system, etc.).
 Continuation of the debates on the electronic forum AFTER the assembly since the desire for effort and involvement is greater once the participants have met each other physically and identified their common concerns. 
 Make participation in the forum obligatory.

•	II.2 – General information on the content 

	Number of answers	Good	Average	Poor	? ? ?	
General information on the content						
General presentation of the assembly	45	23
51%	17
38%	2
4%	3
7%	
Reference text per topic	46	18
39%	21
46%	4
8%	3
7%	
Experience records	45	15
33%	14
31%	3
7%	13
29%	
Syntheses of the forum	46	25
54%	11
24%	4
9%	6
13%	
List of sub-topics	46	22
48%	15
33%	1
2%	8
17%	
The assembly programme	46	27
59%	12
26%	4
9%	3
6%	
Europe web site	43	20
47%	10
23%		13
30%	

 The working documents

Having a detailed working document, such as that used by the RUR workshop, as basis for discussion was greatly appreciated. The source of documents given to the participants in other workshops was not always identified (allies, co-ordinators, etc.) thus making them questionable. 

 The programme

This was considered as a good framework for discussions. However, it was noted that the methodology and cross-linking of workshops presented in the programme were either implemented cursorily or not at all.

Recommendations

 Do not set up topical groups but ones that are cross-linked by topic and region while keeping the same objective.
 A cross-linked “Governance and community action” workshop could have been set up in each topical group.
 Organise work groups for considering concrete action plans per country.
 Each topical workshop could have discussed the following process of the assembly and reported it during the plenary session. 

•	II. 3 – The clarity of expectations and objectives 

	Number of answers	Yes	No	
Have you understood the importance we give to making proposals and not only to analysis and reflection in the assembly?	31	23             74%	8               26%	

Despite the understanding illustrated above, certain things obscured the objectives:
-	The specifications of the proposal booklet were not explained well enough or they had been explained during the plenary session but not recalled or implemented during the topical workshops or else implemented differently according to the workshop.
-	No presentation was made of the questions: for whom, what form, to bear on what, to fight for what cause? . These equated with the ultimate target of the proposals, the form that the proposal booklet should take, its level of content (concrete/abstract), its "policy" orientation”, etc.

Certain participants did not clearly perceive the organisers' expectations:
-	Was it a meeting between Europeans from every background to exchange points of view, or to formulate proposals and then diffuse them in their networks?
-	Or was it aimed at producing joint proposals in the framework of a specifically programmed community event? Hence the problem of the lack of a definite political strategy, and a plan of action to diffuse the proposals.
"Insofar as there was no explicit methodology or objective, the time scheduled for work automaticall became time for debate without any objective for production.”

Some participants underlined the assembly's objectives remained unchanged despite the failure of the forum, which had been the central element of the process. It would have been better to have taken this into account as it changed the structure of the assembly (since only a few people had participated in the forum and the contributions were not of great interest).

	Number of answers	Yes	No	
Was the explanation of all these elements during the first plenary session of use?	26	19          73%	7            27%	

•	II. 4 – The plenary sessions

	Nb. of answs.	Good	Avge.	Poor	? ? ?	
Plenary sessions						
Co-ordination	53	27
51%	24
46%	2
4%		
Placing the Assembly in the context of the Alliance and the project "What Europe do we want?"	52	23
44%	23
44%	4
8%	2
4%	
Restitutions (by the co-ordinators and participants)	52	16
31%	21
40%	12
23%	3
6%	
Linking with other Alliance continental assemblies 	45	5
11%	17
38%	17
38%	6
13%	
Translation	54	32
59%	18
33%	2
4%	2
4%	
Audiovisual communication 	50	25
50%	15
30%	2
4%	8
16%	

The plenary sessions

They were mostly considered as too long; they did not highlight important aspects; "they were not planned so that everyone could feel involved”; they were boring.

Recommendations

 One participant suggested that it would have been enough to read the restitutions of each group during the plenary session, transcribe them and distribute them to the other topical groups which would have added their own comments before handing them back to the group having written the restitution. This would have permitted constructive dialogue.

 Another person proposed replacing the plenary sessions by conferences by independent thinkers such as Anthony Giddens, Ulrich Beck, Jürgen Habermas, Toni Negri, Pierre Bourdieu and Manuel Castells.

 The restitutions

These appeared to be very incomplete. Accumulating the role of co-ordinator with that of reporter during the plenary session was not considered to be very deontological. Time was lacking in the workshops to ensure that the group discussed the restitutions before they were read during the plenary session. 

•	II.5 – The topical workshops

	Nb. answers	Good	Avge.	Poor	? ? ?	
2. Topical workshops						
Co-ordination	54	20
37%	21
39%	12
22%	1
2%	
Methodology	54	10
19%	24
44%	20
37%		
Translation	54	36
67%	13
24%	2
4%	3
5%	
Quality of the debates	54	23
43%	26
48%	5
9%		
Conference rooms (equipment, etc.)	52	30
58%	21
40%	1
2%		
Atmosphere in your topical group  (listening, human warmth of the participants, etc.)	53	45
85%	7
13%	1
2%		

 Co-ordination

NB: The participants' appreciations obviously differ from one topical group to another, depending on the co-ordinators and participants composing the group.
The criticisms expressed appear grouped below, therefore a given criticism does not necessarily apply to all the topical groups.

Although some participants appreciated the flexibility and dynamism of the proceedings, most of them felt that the co-ordination and methodology were the assembly's weak points.

The criticisms are as follows:
-	lack of preparation or clear specifications for the role of co-ordinator, resulting in problems of authority;
-	incompetence (not necessarily concerning the topic but the co-ordination);
-	single language; 
-	non-conformity with the deontology of co-ordination  (the co-ordinator accumulated several functions: author of the framework text, reporter, etc.)
-	lack of taking the participants' expectations into account;
-	lack of taking into account the participants' diversity (and its corollary, failure to use the competences of each person to the full);
-	divergences between two co-ordinators dealing with the same topic; 
-	excess "democracy" undermining the efficiency of the group as a whole;
-	too much pressure to attain the objectives.

When working in groups, some participants regretted that they had no clear idea beforehand of how the debates had progressed (due to the many and labyrinthine digressions; because everything was done orally; and due to an incapacity to "capture, systematise and communicate" the progress of the debates).

Recommendations

 Evaluate with the participants what type of co-ordination they desire, or else entrust this task to one or more of the participants.
 Change the co-ordinators from one session to another in the same group.
 “A neutral (or professional) co-ordinator who appoints people in the groups with journalistic or communicational experience to write daily syntheses or a short diary that takes stock of progress for all the participants. ”

 The methodology

This was heavily criticised since no presentation was made of the methodology or its application to work. Certain participants would have liked prior knowledge of it before the assembly, which would have made discussion and adjustment possible during it.

Furthermore, it was stated that there was no minimum form of common information that highlighting the diversity of the participants at the assembly.
“This lack of minimum information resulted in creating a gulf between  the "experts", the people "in-the-field" and the “novices”, and bogged down a large number of debates in semantic and technical disputes.”

Several participants would have liked the groups to be broken down into smaller ones (a maximum of 10 people) which would have dealt with much more specific problems.

Recommendations

 Upgrade the level of information 
Provide the participants with a common basis for work by sending the documents that guarantee the credibility of the proposals made:
- working papers by philosophers, sociologists, political scientists, etc. other than those working in the Alliance;
- statistics, opinions, proposals; 
- the presence of experts on the topic who could present the subject to “simples citizens”.

 Discuss the topics less but more in-depth.
 Form smaller groups.

 Methodology of constituting the groups 

“the principle of the methodology should be that the group must produce specific knowledge easily distinguishable from that of its individual members. I think it is important not to confuse informal exchanges and warmth of interpersonal relations with improvisation regarding the co-ordination of the group's production. On the contrary, it is not possible to improvise the methodology of group production.
The only way to respect and instil dignity in a group (and justify the effort made to set it up) is to produce something that genuinely represents the participants' cross-disciplinary knowledge, that accounts for its convergences and divergences, that accumulates this knowledge and that organises it in view to diffusing it outside the group.”

•	III.1 – The elements of this assembly to be conserved (by order of importance)

NB: Regarding the two following sections, the participants' appreciations are either precise and concise or vague with little explanation. Nonetheless, they have been taken into account.

Number of respondents: 59

The quality of the participants	77	
The diversity and wide range of geographic and professional backgrounds and ages of the participants.	23	
The opportunity of making friends and useful contacts 	12	
The feeling of brotherhood and solidarity 	5	
Intercultural relations that permit better understanding of the other	22	
The possibility of learning things and having new ideas	10	
Warm atmosphere	5	
The content of the assembly	35	
The participation of civil society	1	
The joint responsibility of influencing European construction	6	
The human will to change things, and enthusiasm 	9	
The common concerns of Western and Eastern Europe 	7	
Choice of topics	4	
Multidisciplinary vision	1	
Taking the history of Europe into account 	1	
Linking projects and ideas	1	
Interested in working on the assembly's sequels 	3	
Alliance missions	2	
The form of the assembly 	21	
Freedom of expression	2	
Dynamism and creativity	2	
Working methods	2	
Alternation of forms (including division into topical groups)	6	
Organisation of plenary sessions	1	
Positive dynamism of the co-ordinators 	1	
Existence and continuation of the electronic forum 	3	
Link between local and global (including intercontinental communication)	4	
Logistics/Organisation	18	
Beauty of the site 	3	
Visits and closing party	3	
Informal moments	3	
Presence of Romanians in the organisation	2	
Quality of the organisation	7	

•	III. 2 – Things in the assembly to be avoided (by order of importance)

Number of respondents: 49

The form of the assembly	65	
Unclear and/or unsuitable working methods in workshops 	10	
Lack of analysis and methodology	3	
Over-large groups 	2	
Cross-linked workshops not developed enough	4	
Plenary sessions (in particular too long)	11	
Lack of links between workshops and plenary sessions 	1	
Communication problems (language, jargon)	3	
Translation 	2	
Programme too full, lack of time 	6	
Assembly was too long (thus resulting in fatigue)	3	
Random identification of participants; absence of socio-economic experts	4	
Co-ordination (including use of only one language, lack of expert on topic, little account taken of the intercultural dimension and divergent viewpoints, too much pressure to reach objectives, people involved in the Alliance over-privileged)	9	
Lack of preparation of participants; late reception of information	2	
Too many digressions in the workshops 	2	
Working papers drawn up without Central and Eastern European Countries 	1	
No specifications given to the roles of each person in the groups 	1	
Gap between practice and theory 	1	
The content of the assembly 	10	
The objectives lacked clarity 	8	
Incoherent topics 	1	
Over-political debates	1	
Logistics/Organisation	10	
Accommodation (double and triple rooms)	4	
Poor Internet connections 	1	
All expenses paid	2	
Not enough contact with the local population 	2	
No media presence	1	
Nothing to criticise!	7	

•	III.3 – How the participants felt after the assembly 

	Nb. of Answrs. 	Good	Avrge.	Poor	? ? ?	
New energy for your projects, activities and reflections	48	36
75%	9
19%	3
6%		
The feeling of involvement and the wish to expand from the Peles network	46	36
78%	8
18%	1
2%	1
2%	
The desire to diffuse and improve the proposals because belief that another world is possible 	50	42
84%	6
12%	2
4%		

While ready to diffuse the proposals, some participants hoped that they would become more credible.
•	VI – General recommendations

 The duration of the assembly (5 days) was appreciated differently: 
- Over-long due to lassitude, overloaded programme;
- Too short to deal with the subjects identified in the topical groups, “not enough to write proposals expressing genuine understanding of the problems and their “solutions”, in order to get them to progress in the right direction”;
- Too short to visit and understand the host country (which would have led to understanding of the accommodation conditions provided by the Peles site and feeling less out of phase with the  surrounding countryside).
- On the practical level, one participant emphasised that it was very difficult to free himself for this length of time or longer.

 Place more emphasis on ways of forging links: “first of all, more rituals, games, and casual encounters are required to create friendship between us (otherwise, how can international solidarity be created?)”.

 “The continental messengers and the audiovisual team [could have] been more active, for example, by offering entertaining reports of the day, and by creating an imitation or group identity. A poem or song from a different country every day, a news sheet and a photo album are some ideas that could have been exploited”.

 “Freer (physical and intellectual) areas to create an “off” space would have been useful (in this respect we received much help from the interest shown for the subject by several organisers).  Perhaps small clans could have been prevented from forming by more visible forms of letting off steam; short, filmed reports of the meetings, and so forth”.

 Continue to exchange information between participants (materials, articles, reports of international conferences, etc.).

 Regularly organise other meetings in the future so as to continue formulating proposals.

 Suggestions of topics for future meetings:

- Collaboration between NGOs and different levels of authority: local, regional, national, etc.
- Activities by NGOs and community development as a means of building civil society.
- Promoting free circulation of information and the philosophy of contemporary Europe.
- The challenges, criteria and perspectives for enlarging the EU.
- Subsidiarity, self-determination and national integrity: their correlation and progression in a developing European community.
- The foundations of a common European foreign policy.
- Conflict in the Middle East and European civil society.
- Countries in transition: their challenges and contributions to European construction.
- European culture and other world civilisations: the history and foundations of a common European culture and perspectives for progression and enhancement.

 Ask participants for a financial contribution even if modest in view to making everyone more responsible.

 In addition to informal contacts, privilege formal bilateral and multilateral contacts with representatives of NGOs, universities, etc.

Appendix 1

Origin of the 64 evaluation questionnaires received

Geographical origin	Number of answers	
Albania	1	
Algeria	1	
Germany	2	
Austria	3	
Azerbaijan	2	
Belarus	3	
Belgium	4	
Bulgaria	2	
Canada (correspondent from the Americas)	1	
Croatia	2	
Denmark	1	
Spain	2	
Estonia	1	
France	2	
Georgia	3	
Greece	2	
Hungary	2	
Israel	1	
Italy	1	
Latvia 	1	
Lithuania 	3	
Macedonia	1	
Morocco 	1	
Moldavia	1	
Netherlands	1	
Norway	2	
Basque Country	1	
Portugal	3	
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 	1	
Czech Republic	3	
Romania	2	
Russia	1	
Switzerland 	3	
Tunisia	2	
Turkey	2	
TOTAL	64	

By membership of the European Union 
	Absolute value	Percentage value	
European Union (EU)	22	34	
Candidates for EU membership 	16	25	
Autres 	26	41	
TOTAL	64	100	

By geographic group
Geopolitical groups	Absolute value	Percentage value	
Northern Europe	13	20	
Southern Europe	12	19	
Central and Eastern European Countries	23	36	
Newly Independent States	10	16	
Maghreb region and the Middle East	6	9	
Total	64	100	

Points answered by the organisers 

The synthesis of the evaluations just presented to you highlights the answers sometimes given by the same participant.
We feel that this is a good occasion to recall points answered by the organisers and which accompany the questionnaire

***
Generally, for us, the European continental assembly was a success, given the conditions and the challenges that had to be overcome. These involved gathering a large number of people that had never met each other, most of whom had never heard of the Alliance movement and its method of working, and whom were prevented from any opportunity to present and explain themselves. What is more, they were asked to formulate concrete proposals on subjects not necessarily ideal for this type of action. So, getting results after only five days is an achievement!
Naturally, they were not always satisfactory.
Obviously, Innocent was right to call us timid.
And of course we could have done better … as always! 
But even so!

To start with we will focus on what did not work as well as we would have liked:
- Most of the participants were identified too late: the partners responsible for identifying them often failed to keep to the timetable; what is more there were many late cancellations  (perhaps meetings with all expenses paid lead to a some persons losing their sense of commitment!).
- Not all the preparatory work that had to be done collectively over six months on the electronic forum had been completed and we had to make up for this lost time of reflection during the assembly itself. 
- The lack of prior media exposure and the absence of the Romanian press at the meeting were not foreseen either.

I. Logistical organisation

On the one hand, the Romanian travel agency was very efficient, though thanks to big efforts from us since their hierarchical management slowed down smooth relations during the months of preparation.
On the other hand, the requirements of certain participants were very difficult to satisfy. 

•	During the meeting:
From our point of view, the smoothness of dialogue between the participants, the effort of listening and using the language of the other, optimising communication, openness without forming geographic and linguistic clans, etc. were impressive. The group's cohesion was visible from the outset, despite the fact that very few people knew each other beforehand.

II. Organisation of the content

This is the point that frustrated us most, since our initial aim had been to give the participants of the assembly six months using the electronic forum to get to know each other, exchange their experiences and above all formulate (jointly with the coordinators) the subjects to be debated and the possible proposals to be finalised during the assembly itself.
Very few of the participants at the meeting had benefited from this joint work (due to late identification for some and also lack of participation and contributions from those who had been able to take part in the process).
Consequently, it was more difficult than imagined to coordinate the work sessions. The method chosen had to be modified in the final weeks before the assembly, resulting in a loss of precious preparation time.
It should be recalled that the topics chosen at the first preparatory meeting when the project was being set up (March 2000) were not dealt with by the Alliance workshops and some topic contributors failed to carry out their role or even abandoned it on the way.
Furthermore, the fact that the continental assemblies were held simultaneously demanded work from a great number of allies, thus the Peles coordinators had to take on this difficult task without enough preparation and without specialised knowledge of the topics.

•	During the meeting:

I can only mention the GOV workshop, which I joined from the moment organisation allowed and I was struck by the strong desire of all to formulate and produce interesting reflection together. 
As often happens, it appears that the restitutions have not always rendered justice to the wealth of the debate and the proposals made. We will try to retrieve the essence of these facets by reworking all the material produced: notes, writings on the paperboard, diagrams, documents, etc.

I am personally responsible for having left out the context of the one and half hour session devoted to the persons from the Middle East and the Maghreb region. Subject to long preparation, this session had been intended as an interactive forum for questions and answers between continental Europeans and the neighbouring countries of the Mediterranean involved in European Construction. The overlong presentation of the region's problems was slightly off the mark and I understand the surprise of some. Other regions suffer from difficult and painful situations that are just as pertinent.

All the Alliance continental assemblies (the Americas, Asia, Africa, the Arab world and Europe) were scheduled to start on 21 June. Given that our meeting ended on this date, we were unable to really benefit from the intercontinental communication set up. I hope that you have been able to consult all the messages on the website. 

III. The future

We have great expectations for the future of our joint activities and hope that everyone has been able to glean positive elements from the approach and wishes to fuel the movement with their own projects and actions.

Thank you
Manola