B.B. Bock

Environmental co-operatives as a new mode of rural governance

The modernization paradigm, which for many decades dominated agricultural practices, policies and science, is gradually being replaced by a rural development paradigm. The emerging rural development paradigm calls, amongst other things, for a new approach to policy-making, steering and control, in other words, for a new approach to rural governance. The need for new forms of rural governance is embedded in current political and scientific debates on shifts in multi-level governance that occur in a variety of socio-economic domains. Within the domain of agriculture and rural development, self-organization and self-regulation emerge as a new mode of rural governance. Environmental co-operatives are a promising expression of this, They are characterized by new institutional relations between state agencies and the agricultural community, new social networks of trust at local level and the re-embedding of farming in its local social and ecological context. In the Frisian Woodlands, the environmental co-operatives VEL and VANLA succeeded in building new local social networks of trust and in re-integrating dairy farming, nature conservation and landscape management. However, further development towards self-regulation is hampered by a lack of institutional support, particularly from national government authorities.

Rural gender relations: issues and case studies.

Introduction: rural gender studies in North and South, B B Bock, Wageningen University, Netherlands Part 1: Gender and Farming Gender and farming: an overview, S Shortall, Queens University, Belfast, UK Gender Relations and Livelihood Strategies, M Gorman, Self Help Development International, Ireland Commodity production and farm womens work, S Machum, St Thomas University, New Brunswick, Canada Farm women in Slovenia, M Cernic Istenic, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia The informalization of farm employment, A Kritzinger, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa Women and sustainable agriculture, S Tufts Rickson, R E Rickson and D Burch, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia Gender at the border, J D Momsen, University of California, USA Part 2: Gender and Rural Migration Gender and rural migration: an overview, B B Bock, Wageningen University, Netherlands The gendered impact of drought, M Alston, Charles Stuart University, Australia Rural idylls or boring places?, M S Haugen and M Villa, Centre for Rural Research, Trondheim, Norway Rural immigrations and female employment, A G Papadopoulos, Harokopeion University, Greece Part 3: Gender and Rural Politics Gender and rural politics: an overview, S Shortall, Queens University, Belfast, UK Gender and rural development budgets, B B Bock and P Derkzen, Wageningen University, Netherlands Collective action among rural women in India, J-A Everingham, University of Queensland, Australia CAP regulations and farm household relations, C Safilios-Rothschildt, Agricultural University of Athens, Greece Part 4: Rurality and Gender Identity Rurality and gender identity: an overview, B B Bock, Wageningen University, Netherlands Rural women and the environment, C Sachs, Penn State University, USA Economic status and gender roles, S Shortall, Queens University, Belfast, UK Rural health and well-being, R Panelli, University of Otago, New Zealand Gender, body and machinery, B Brandth, Centre for Rural Research, Trondheim, Norway Queer countryside revisited, D Bell, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK Part 5: Conclusion Conclusion - future directions, S Shortall, Queens University, Belfast, UK.

Partnership and Role Perception, Three Case Studies on the Meaning of Being a Representative in Rural Partnerships

We focus on the governance instrument of partnerships for rural areas, because these have become important for the implementation of rural development policy in Britain. Emergent forms of governance are often assumed to enhance participatory democracy as they facilitate the involvement of nongovernmental actors and citizens. However, governmental policies about partnerships often use ‘representation’ to democratically legitimise these new forms. Partnership members themselves also use these concepts in their everyday language—they too say that they represent and participate. We explore the different meanings of both being a representative and being a participant, based on a qualitative study of three local rural partnerships in Wales. Our analysis reveals important nuances in how four types of representatives (from the public, private, community, and voluntary sectors) differ in their perceived duties and attitudes towards their constituencies. But, above all, most partnership members see themselves rather as participants than as representatives. However, partnership members can also hide behind being participants in two ways. First, they can downplay their organisational membership and their organisations self-interest. Partnership members who most actively participate in ‘driving the partnership forward’ are also those who have the most self-interest in doing so. And, second, they do not have to worry about accountability mechanisms because their individualised participation has been decoupled from responsiveness to ‘others’. The neoliberal notions of participation obscure the political nature of working in partnership where decisions over rural development have to be made among members with different and possibly conflicting interests.

Integrated Rural Policy in Context: A Case Study on the Meaning of ‘Integration’ and the Politics of ‘Sectoring’

Partnerships for rural development are often presented as powerful ways of promoting ‘integration’. This paper examines the reality of this claim, first by analysing what ‘integration’ means and then presenting a case study of a Dutch rural partnership that shows how ‘integration’ was diluted by the ‘politics of sectoring’. In this case study, ‘integration’ was taken to mean harmonizing sectoral policies for the physical environment and to imply the integration of competing land-use claims. Representatives of different policy sectors sought to safeguard and advance their sectoral objectives through a number of strategies, including expanding conflicts to other playing fields and containing conflicts through private settlement. The interplay of these interests created a paradoxical outcome. The existing sectoral policies were maintained and ‘integration’ was achieved through the spatial separation of the most conflicting land uses, those of intensive husbandry farming and protecting nature. The Dutch Ministry of Agriculture sees such partnerships as a good example of ‘integrated rural policy’ but the example shows that the integration of existing sectoral policies for the physical environment has little to do with the achievement of wider socio-economic objectives.

Gender mainstreaming and rural development policy; the trivialisation of rural gender issues

This paper considers gender mainstreaming of the EU Rural Development Programme. The EU promotes the gender mainstreaming of rural development policies because retaining women in rural areas is seen as crucial to the long-term viability of rural areas. A review of literature and scan of policy documents demonstrates that few rural development plans address gender issues, and generally only by including some separate projects for women. Little is done to address the systemic features of gender inequality and to realise inclusive developments that address the needs of all social groups. The de-politicisation of rural gender issues results in policy makers ticking the obligatory gender box without envisioning any real change in the agenda or process of rural development policy making. I argue that a more fruitful way to go forward is to re-politicise gender in rural development and to tease out at the local level how changing gender relations and rural development coincide.

Changes in farming and in stakeholder concern for animal welfare

The present chapter aims to describe and discuss the socio-economic developments and the related scientific advancements that formed the background and context of the Welfare Quality project. This project was clearly a ‘child of its time’. In the last decades animal welfare issues have attracted growing public attention and research in this area has grown to become a mature scientific discipline that is capable of addressing the new societal, political and market demands for more animal friendly types of production. This chapter specifically addresses the changes in animal farming that have occurred in the last fifty years as well as the emergence of animal welfare science. It then examines EU policy and legislation on the protection of farm animal welfare and changes in farmers’ attitudes and stakeholders’ concerns regarding animal welfare in Europe. The final section is dedicated to the analysis of the rise of public concern for farm animal welfare as well as the conditions for the emergence of consumer demand for animal friendly products.

Community gardening and social cohesion: different designs, different motivations

ABSTRACT Community gardens vary in several ways: they are cultivated by different kinds of communities in various locations, entail individual or communal plots and the extent of active participation (e.g. gardening) differs. In this paper, we study seven community gardens with varying organisational designs and objectives, and investigate the extent to which these influence the enhancement of social cohesion. We also take into account to what extent differences in motivation among community gardeners matter. Despite these differences in motivation, however, we find that in all of the cases studied, people talk to and get to know others, and mutual help is widespread. We, therefore, conclude that community gardens contribute to the development of social cohesion – even if people are not particularly driven by social motivations. Moreover, while participants who are motivated by the social aspects of gardening naturally show a higher level of appreciation for them, these social aspects also bring added value for those participants who are motivated primarily by growing vegetables.

Harmonization of welfare standards for the protection of pigs with the EU rules: the case of Croatia

Abstract Three quarters of Croatian pigs are produced in small production units (1-5 sows) and on family farms with mixed farming activities. Only few farms have specialized production units with up-to-date technologies and comply with EU standards. The future competitiveness of Croatian pig production is therefore questionable unless production systems are changing. Modernisation will most probably result in the expansion and intensification of larger farms and the termination of a great number of small farms. The aim of this study was to investigate how the welfare of pigs on Croatian farms would be affected by modernisation. Seventeen Croatian pig farmers were interviewed to describe the different pig production systems, while the welfare of pigs was assessed using resource-based and animal-based welfare indicators. Three production systems were distinguished: part-time family farms (PFF), full-time family farms (FFF) and farm enterprises (FE). Resources-based welfare indicators were investigated in 17 pens located on seven PFF, 25 pens distributed across six FFF and seven pens were visited at two FE. Animal-based welfare indicators were assessed on 21 pigs at PFF, 90 pigs at FFF and 18 pigs at FE. The study demonstrated that different production systems have different welfare problems. Based on resource-based indicators pig welfare was better ensured on FE, but based on animal-based indicators there was no clear difference in welfare between the three production systems. Based on these findings is it unlikely that the modernisation of current production systems in Croatia will significantly improve pig welfare. From a welfare point of view, neither the enlargement nor the termination of pig farms can be supported. However, the number of farms involved in this study was too small to allow for generalisation. The case-study does, however, point at the importance of further studies into the specific welfare problems of each of the production-systems and their different solutions. These studies should be of larger scale in order to get a representative picture of pig welfare in Croatia, and its assurance within the process of modernisation.

Rural gender regimes : the development of rural gender research and design of a comparative approach

Rural gender regimes : the development of rural gender research and design of a comparative approach

Barriers to Women's Participation in Rural Policy Making

The governance of rural areas has undergone considerable changes over the past decades. Its scope has broadened to incorporate a range of issues beyond, the once dominant, agricultural interests. At the same time, the process of policy making has changed from one of government to one of governance: from centralist and state-led policy initiatives to policy formation and delivery by a combination of public and private stakeholders with a growing role for the local and regional levels (Winter, 2002; Goodwin, 1998; Storey, 1999; Rhodes, 1996). The European Union has fuelled the emphasis on the regional and local level through its regulations for the delivery of structural funds (Geddes, 2000). The ECs White Paper on European Governance states that working in partnership is one of the leading principles of ‘good governance’ (CEC, 2001). In several countries national governments have embraced multi-sector partnership working, or area-based policy making with the objective of enhancing efficient and inclusive policy delivery.Area based programmes are frequently presented as a means of addressing civic exclusion, both through the inclusive nature of the partnership structure, and through the local nature of the partnership, which is perceived to allow greater access to excluded groups than centralised policy. (Shortall, 2004, p. 113)