- Email: [email protected]
Agriculture in Europe 2000
438
Agriculture in Euro@ 2000
AGRICULTURE
IN EUROPE
2000
An interim report on a cross-national research project Anton J. Jansen and Steven Faith
The futures research programme initiated by the European Cultural Foundation, Amsterdam, in 1968, under the general title of Plan Europe 2000, consists of four projects: Education, Industrialisation, Urbanisation and Agricu1ture.l Work on the last Agriculture Project commenced in September 1970. The prime aim of the project is to provide alternative “guiding images” of the roles and functions which agriculture could fulfil in Western Europe in the future. 2 European countries are now predominantly urban nations. The latest OECD statistics of member countries reveal that the percentage of population occupied in agriculture, forestry and fishing ranges from 2.7% in the United Kingdom, through6*9% in the Netherlands and 13.4% in France, to the maximum of 31*10/o in Portugal. Industrialisation has reduced agriculture to a relatively minor position in the economies of these countries so that even in Portugal the percentage contribution from agriculture to the Gross Domestic Product is only 16%. The process of urbanisation together with migration from the countryside has been reducing the rural population in Western Europe, even producing virtual depopulation in isolated areas. Yet even in England, with such a small farming population, inhabitation of the rural areas including city fringes has been estimated by Gwyn Jones at 30%-and is growing today.3 This indicates some of the forces at play in Western European agriculture, which are creating immense social, economic and political problems. However, they are also blurring the distinction between rural and urban life. Urban people are moving to the countryside, and the declining farming populations are under the extreme pressures of intensifying production. Tonnies’s “Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft” differences-of rural social relationships being based on kinship, localism and on sharing responsibility as opposed to WESTERN
Anton J. Jansen is Project Director and Steven Faith is Assistant Director of the Agriculture Project of Plan Europe 2000. (European Cultural Foundation, Jan van Goyenkade 5, Amsterdam 1007, The Netherlands). The authors wish to thank Gwyn E. Jones for his help in the final drafting of this article.
FUTURES
October 1973
Agriculture in Europe 2000
439
urban social relationships based on rational calculation, vicissitude, and formal and limited responsibilities-still hold but with decreasing accuracy. It is in this environment of a particular rural social structure in varying degrees of breakdown and crisis that we have applied a futures research programme. We have not been concerned with studying methods of dealing with the symptoms of the “agricultural problem”; nor have we been involved in extrapolating today’s trends. Our futures research has aimed at discovering different roles for agriculture in relation to the whole society. We have defined this aim as building “alternative images” for the future of agriculture in society. Bell and Mau define an image of the future as “an expectation about the state of things to come at some future time. We may most usefully think of such expectations as a range of differentially probable possibilities rather than a single point on a continuum”.4 The nature of alternative images (or alternative futures) is an extremely complex one. All that alternative images of the future indicate is that a number of social goals exist in contemporary society, derived from different value systems. In terms of today’s political and social life, these social goals are vectors working against each other within contemporary society. The aim of futures research is to lift these social goals out of the present day situation and by structuring them within a logical and comparative framework to submit them for rational assessment. Therefore the alternative images which are to be constructed should be qualitatively different from each other, radically contrasted in value commitment, in priorities and in power structure. As will be described later, our approach to the construction of alternative images has been analysed on the basis of four categories of social power: economic, political, cultural and communal. The technique which we have used to elevate the social goals from the present day situation has included imagination, invention, anticipation and reflection. As will be described, we have held workshops, consisting of groups of people involved in agriculture and rural life, in eight Western European countries. The scientific use of subjectivity expressed in this way is, of course, a very as Stuart Sandow delicate operation. It has been necessary to understand, points out, that “goals are cliches to all but their advocates”.5 The creative exposition of goals is further hindered by the virtual absence of research into “values”, so that the imaginative process is the only technique applicable. We have attempted to understand the values implied in the goals expressed in the workshops through the application of value-object questions based on the work of Kluckholn and Strodtbeck, and we shall examine the value-shifts that resulLs The approach chosen by the agriculture project of Plan Europe 2000 falls into the category of “critical futurology” described by Barry Hake who works on the Education Project of Plan Europe 2000.’ Hake presents four categories of futurology: surprise-free, crisis, critical and constructive. Critical futurology assumes a basic value-shift to be occurring in present society, different values and goals being seen to reside in different social groups in the present social system. However, while critical futurology is characterised by a high consideration of alternative value systems, it is also characterised by a low level consideration of the strategies essential to the implementation of the alternatives suggested.
FUTURES
October 1973
440
Agriculture in Europe 2000
This criticism, although it fails to appreciate that a strategy-free technique is essential in order to reveal alternative images, is nevertheless a timely warning that any futures research project must eventually return to reality. Our technique, characterised by subjectivity in the early stages of the research, will lead later on in the project to rational and cognitive methods. In defining the aims of this project on the future of agriculture in Western Europe, we started from the recognition of a continuing agricultural crisis in the area, often referred to as the “agricultural problem”. At the basis of this problem, which has been one of the major political issues in Europe over the last 50 years or so, lies the incomplete and unequal integration of the traditional peasant economic system into a dynamic, so-called industrial society. Agricultural policies have failed to find solutions to this problem. Their sectorial and short-term “problem-oriented” approaches have even contrisocial and cultural isolation of a subbuted to a continuing economic, stantial part of the farming community and of rural regions, and to growing disparities in income and social welfare between categories of farmers and between rural regions. On the other hand, agricultural policies have been unable to formulate answers to new values and needs developing in society which directly affect the farming community and its activities. These policies, also, have been and are lacking in a real European and even more in a world-wide perspective, considering agricultural problems within rather artificial dividing lines, set by national or “common market” realities. It is our basic assumption that the roles which agriculture plays in society contain the clues to a solution of the agricultural problem. Therefore the fundamental question to be answered is, “What does European society want the roles of farming to be ?“. Thus the final aims of this project are to provide a frame of reference for a new approach to the agricultural problem, a set of guiding images intended to elucidate the choices that will have to be made and the decisions that will have to be taken on behalf of the future development of agriculture in Europe. As different interest groups tend to set different goals for the future of agriculture, any thinking on the desirable future development of agriculture has to take this political reality into account. Therefore, in the first stages of this project, we have tried to define images of alternative futures for agriculture in Europe through a dialogue between science and society. These alternative definitions of what should and/or could be the roles of agriculture in society around the year 2000 might appear to be strongly related to the positions taken already by particular “interest groups” in Europe (say, by all farmers’ organisations working towards alternative x, by all the environmentalist lobbies aiming for alternative y), but which might find their supporters throughout these interest groups. This is one of the reasons why, in the first stage of the project, we have approached interested individuals for participation in national workshops, instead of asking organisations and institutions to send delegates. As we stated in our first, background brochure: “Our ideal is that within the framework of this project a permanent dialogue should be established between society and science on the possible future roles of farming in society. Alternative answers, of course, will most probably emerge; they should be tested and compared with each other. But, if scientists and experts wish to make a contribution
FUTURES
October 1973
Agriculture in Eurofe 2000
441
to the solution of societal problems, society should be engaged from the beginning in the definition of these problems”.*
The method
and programme
of research
CItaracler of the method. Our aim in this research was to reveal existing social goals for the future of agriculture in relation to society as a whole. Our method, in the initial stages, relied on a creative effort of imagination on the part of some of those who work in or who are involved with agriculture. g In workshops held in eight Western European countries, we asked groups to describe their goals for the future of society and the roles that farming should play in such a society. This method is in fact one which is well described in futures research-that of “utopia writing”. IIowever, this method of research has been criticised for its low relevance to existing situations and to the strategies necessary for change. Umberto Eco, in a study for the urbanisation project of Plan Europe 2000, presents the criticism that “essentially futurology thinks in a non-political way about supposed problems of the future which are actually political problems of today”. lo In our research project, we have made a determined effort to produce a method of futures writing which overcomes this weakness. By involving dzi$erent interest grou@, holding different value commitments, we are directly involved in the political battles of today, but within the arena of abstract futures. Moreover, by attempting to reveal alternative images, we are at the heart of values in contemporary society; as Dror points out, “there are parts of policy sciences which are involved in the invention of different alternative futures, including their value contents. As a result, policy sciences constitute a breach in the solid wall separating contemporary sciences from ethics and the philosophy of values”. 1l Workshops for reuealing social futures. A “workshop”, in the sense in which the term is used in this project, is a meeting of people in which something is constructed. In the case of Plan Europe 2000, Project 4 (Agriculture), it was the construction of contrasted group visions of the future, in which an attempt has been made to answer four questions: l l l l
What What What What
are your goals for society in the future? should be the roles of farming in such a society? will be the obstacles to a natural evolution to such a society? will be the necessary changes?
The nature of the workshops was one of subjectivity or, as we described it to the participants in the workshop, of irre$mibiZi~. “You will be encouraged to be irresponsible in the sense that you can express how you feel the future should be”. We were asking the participants in the national workshops to try to think freely and not just within their present day responsibilities and constraints. The national workshops (excluding an experimental one) each began with “brainstorming” on the goals for a controlled discussion of the first question-a the future of society, This was one of the main exercises in creativity, from which ideas emerged which set the framework for the workshop, Following on
FUTURES
October
WT3
442
Agriculture in Europe 2000
from this brainstorming, participants produced “individual sketches” which allowed personal expression, and also provided the means for arranging common interest groups. These groups then devoted their attention to answering, in turn, the four questions, thus producing the contrasted group visions-alled “group sketches”. Group sketches from the national workshops represent the first crude product of Project 4. They are relatively structured and contain a large number of “pointers to futures”. Through a detailed content analysis, an attempt has been made to order these pointers into “families”, called “key sketches”; these are the precursors of “alternative images”. The structuring of key sketches. A preliminary content analysis of the national workshop sketches revealed that they contained four main streams of thought (“key sketches”). These were then subjected to a full-scale structural analysis, the structural themes being based on four categories of social power. Hake defines social power as “the positive capacity of social groups to control their institutional situations which comprise the social structure”.ls We developed four categories for the analysis of the national workshop sketches : a. Economic power: the aims and functions of economic activity, production and consumption patterns, the type of regulation of the economic activity, and their international dimensions. b. Political power: the structure and distribution of political power, the mechanisms of decision making, communication, planning and administration, and their international dimensions. c. Cultural power: the forms of values and knowledge, the forms of socialisation, mechanisms for creating values and knowledge, and innovation and social change. d. Communal power: social roles and statuses, obligations and commitments, work and non-work, the patterns of settlement, and the structure of neighbourhood and family. Using these four types of social power as content analysis categories, whole national workshop sketches (which had during the preliminary analysis been allocated within a key sketch) were broken down into a collection of quotations, and each quotation placed within one of the social power categories. In this way the structural themes of each key sketch were constructed. On the basis of these structural themes constructed for each key sketch, summaries and working documents for the four key sketches were prepared for the next stage of the research, the European workshop. A workshop for building social futures. The European workshop, designed to build up the key sketches towards alternative images, was the conclusion of stage one of Project 4. On the basis of “structural themes”, working documents on society and on agriculture were prepared. These documents were intended to display the quotations, so that the participants in the European workshop could use them as building blocks for more concrete structures. Whereas the national workshops had relied on the subjective processes, the European workshop depended on the ability of participants to consider rationally a particular format for society and the roles that agriculture should play in that society. Participants
FUTURES
October 1973
Agriculture in Eurofie 2000
443
in the European workshop were not encouraged to discuss strategies for the achievement of their goals but to concentrate more on how real in terms of their own internal logic and consistency were the key sketches. In this way would emerge four or more (or fewer) alternative images which would be the precursors of the next stage of the work, the study of the change requirements, of the feasibility and desirability of the alternatives being produced. Th research programme. Early in 1971 a general programme for the project agreed upon by its scientific committee, comprising three main phases: l invention and synthesis of “possible futures”; in this phase the would be mainly entrusted to workshops; l analysis, evaluation and elaboration, in which these “possible (alternative images) would be subjected to scientific studies; 0 implementation.
was
research futures”
It was hoped that the first two phases could be concluded by the end of 1972. In fact, the presentation of alternative images, the final product of the first phase, will not be possible until October 1973. This delay has been mainly caused by an underestimation of the problems involved in the organisation of 10 nationalworkshops in eight European countries.13
The national workshops In May 1971, a start was made on collecting, through local informants, the names of possible participants in the national workshops being planned. Four broad categories of participants were considered: (1) Agriculture: farmers, farmers’ wives and officials of farmers’ organisations ; (2) Business and industry : in particular those connected with agricultural activities; (3) Experts: agricultural and general scientific workers; (4) Environment: people concerned with agriculture’s future development from outside the agricultural activity as such. In this way, 2 000 names and addresses were collected and from these, according to their responses, a selection was made with respect to age, sex, and optimal balance between representatives of the four categories mentioned above.14 All the national workshops (December 1971-June 1972) had the same programme, directed towards answering the four questions mentioned earlier. Reports and summaries of the workshops’ proceedings were published in autumn 1972 and early in 1973. I5 The summaries assembled together a collection of the most characterising quotations, drawn from the national workshop sketches, which had been allocated to each key sketch.ls
The European workshop Participation in the European workshop was limited to former national workshop participants, mainly because the European workshop was an integral part of a dialogue between 186 Europeans who thus had the opportunity to confront each other and to develop and synthesise their ideas on a European level. All the national workshop participants were approached by questionnaire to enquire whether they would be able and willing to attend the European
FUTURES
October 1973
444
Agriculture in Europe 2000
workshop. About 80 favourable replies were received, but finally only 48 of them could attend the European Workshop. (The project staff had always considered 50 as an optimal participation.) Of course, through this selection process some disparities in the actual participation could not be prevented, in particular referring to national representati0n.l’ The fact that the European workshop in Wageningen had to be operated in two languages (French and English) also deterred a certain number of former national workshop participants. Before coming to Wageningen, participants had been asked to choose the key-sketch which they would prefer to work on in the European workshop. On the basis of these choices, four “key-groups” were constituted, and started with a discussion on standardised versions of the original summaries. Then the four “key-groups” operated independently of each other and each, in a working document called “Structural themes”, defined its main objectives for Society 2000, ie what should be the future roles of agriculture within the framework of these general objectives, and how these roles would be organised. The images of agriculture in 2000 produced in this way, therefore, should not only describe the roles which it should fulfil in future society, but also provide a first appraisal of what this would mean in terms of the economic, political, cultural and social organisation of agriculture within the society.ls
Concluding
remarks
A research project which aims at revealing alternative images of the future through a subjective method of workshops is of course exploratory work. At the outset of the programme one could only anticipate that different interest groups would produce different sets of goals for the future of agriculture in society. The abundance of ideas about-and of fears and hopes for-the future, and the constructive proposals derived from workshops operating within a background of different cultures, are in themselves a very interesting product of the process; this is over and above any system or patterns into which they may fall. The development of these different views and goals is an impressive proof of the place of participation and subjectivity in futures research. The ideas are not “new” in any sense-they have been put forward before by various individuals in relation to many varying problems and situations. What makes the ideas “original” is their production by groups of people who are involved in a particular industry and way of life and who have attempted, as groups, to build a structured overview of the society as a whole and the future roles of agriculture within it.
Summaries of the four key sketches The summaries given below are in the same form and order as they were in the first working document presented to the participants of the European workshop. As already stated, although we did not intend to change their content, there was a change in form in comparison to the summaries presented earlier, in order to formulate them more clearly. The four summaries are written in the present tense, but depict the future. In
FUTURES
October 1873
Agriculture inEurope2000 445
fact, they were considered to be precursors of the images to be developed in the European workshop on agriculture in the society of the year 2000. Key sketch 1 Society 2000 offers each individual the possibility of developing his own capacities and guarantees security to everyone. The state only has a monitoring function in order to avoid abuse. Therefore both individuals and groups must develop a sense of responsibility as a basis for personal liberty and public welfare. Agriculture participates in this society on an equal footing with other interest groups. Society 2000 has an economic system which functions efficiently, but not at the cost of public welfare. In this system, agriculture is a 100% partner of both the manufacturing and the service industries, and is not dependent on government aid. In producing food and raw materials, its main task is to meet the demands of society for optimal productivity of land, capital and labour. Therefore agricultural production is concentrated in the most favourable locations, using up-to-date technology for elaborate rationalisation of production and according to economic principles. Horizontal and vertical integration in agriculture is promoted. In general, the maintenance of an entrepreneurial system is the best means of guaranteeing the efficient performance of the economic system. Parliamentary democracy is being further developed on the basis of responsible cooperation between interest groups, which limits bureaucracy to the absolute minimum. The state only interferes as an arbitrator. Regional and national planning ensure a functional organisation of space and land use, and the optimal location of production activities. Nature conservation and the provision of leisure facilities are mainly the responsibility of the public authorities and not a particular task of agriculture. In general, development, based on the principles of a market economy, is not distorted by political influences. Society 2000 respects private property as a basis for personal development. All the different talents are promoted by a free educational system offering facilities to those taking advantage of them. Everyone has freedom in choice of occupation and equal opportunities. Leisure is considered as a source of creativity and enjoyment. Agriculture is no longer identified as a separate way of life; a new rural mentality has developed which is of a professional nature. The public is better informed about the role and importance of agriculture. Ideally, in Society 2000, no one wishes to change his social position. Marginal groups are integrated by means of increased social and geographical mobility. The world of work is being further humanised, but income is still related to performance. Farmers are professionals in their own right, and receive incomes which compare with those in other sectors of production. Key sketch 2 Society 2000 considers the quality of life as its first priority. Individuality of taste and custom is allowed within a stable system whose demands on raw materials do not exceed the resources of the earth. This society strives for a stabilisation of population, has abandoned growth economics as a basis for action, and exercises strong control on any form of environmental deterioration. This implies that the individual has learned to control the drive for material expansion. Agriculture is the only production process harnessing solar energy which does not have damaging side effects on the environment. Economic activity is determined by planning the rational use of resources and energy. Quality is a basic criterion with a stress on durable products rather than planned
FUTURES
October 1973
446
Agriculture in Europe 2000
obsolescence. Agriculture has a twofold function: food production and the management of land and water resources. Farming is paid for both these functions. Production is organised on a regional basis in order to reduce the need for the transport of goods and the consumption of energy. This implies the maintenance of a diversified farm structure. Land management involves the promotion of good husbandry and the development of production techniques which require a minimum input of non-renewable resources. International co-operation ensures world planning of resources and the control of pollution and waste. World-wide competition for resources is checked by a planned reduction of affluence in the developed countries. Regional autonomy allows democratic expression at the local level. Agricultural production is based on regional needs, within the context of international control of land use. In 2000, ecological principles and ethics are taught at every level on the basis of their necessity for human survival on this planet. Schools and parents emphasise co-operation as a better principle of life than competition. Science and research are primarily directed to the maintenance and renewal of the earth’s resources. Agriculture and forestry, as a secondary function, provide recreation facilities which help man to act against his materialistic instincts. Society 2000 is differentiated in such a way that each member is able to find in it a place suited to his own character and capabilities. Work, leisure and housing have become more integrated: part-time work is generally accepted as an alternative to a short working week. The urban population is more involved in physical work in the countryside. There has been a renaissance of the local rural community. Key sketch 3 Society 2000 enables the individual to satisfy his needs for self-fulfilment and the enjoyment of life. It operates on the principle of providing “pleasure” without making a distinction between work and leisure. It offers the possibility of giving respect to human dignity and personality, while admitting that there are numerous constraints in the organisation of society. Therefore creative freedom and social responsibility are its first priorities. Agriculture is recognised as a meaningful way of life, and it provides the population with the means of releasing the mental pressures of urbanisation through the joy of contact with nature. In Society 2000 there is a growing trend towards economic justice: there is control of accumulated wealth. There is a tendency towards the equalisation of incomes, and the needs of the Third World have been recognised on the world market. Each individual has a minimum guaranteed income, whatever his activities, but a certain amount of competition is maintained to allow scope for achievement. Voluntary limitation of consumption is encouraged. Agricultural production is organised on a world scale: the quality of its products ranks above quantity. Society 2000 is based on the free adhesion of individuals. This ensures a total participation by the individual in decision making, which leads to the suppression of bondage in all its forms. This participation depends on a reduction of coercion, on the elimination of bureaucracy, and on improved information and educational services. There exists a world-wide dt%ente. Society 2000 has an open educational and cultural system, directed towards the free creation of values. The primary aim of education is to increase the individual’s capacities for (self) criticism and communication with others : to enable him effectively to influence his future. Work, leisure and study are integrated into permanent education, which forms the basis of a dynamic society. Technology is used to overcome excessive specialisation and to increase social and cultural mobility. Agriculture plays
FUTURES
October 1973
Agriculture in Europe 2000
447
a specific role in encouraging the understanding of the basic ecology and priorities of life, being an example of life’s rhythm. In Society 2000, new styles of life are continuously developing; traditional concepts being broken down. Individuals choose freely between a variety of ways of life, and feel free to change them. The disparity between rural and urban ways of life has disappeared. Also in agriculture, work is a duty and a means of personal fulfilment at the same time: intellectual and manual work are inseparable. Co-operative forms of working the land and community living have been realised.
Key sketch4 Society 2000 consists of one community of egalitarian interests, achieved through a radical transformation of the class society. It guarantees equality of rights and opportunities for all. The guiding values are solidarity and the integration of individual and group capacities. Money is no longer a source of power and prestige. The progress of society is measured in terms of social and civic development. Agriculture is a key sector in society, and is no longer subordinated to the powers of industrialisation and urbanisation. In Society 2000, the collectivity exercises permanent control over economic and social affairs; the community decides which goods and services to produce, and which resources to utilise. There is no private property, but only private and temporal use. Individual motivation is directed towards a higher common good. Agriculture produces the basic food for national and international needs within the framework of a Global Agricultural Policy. The community has placed environmental considerations amongst those of production. Society 2000 is based on participation, understood as the will for self-government by groups and communities. Power is on a human scale: a political, decentralised organisation allows individuals to express themselves. Economic and social planning is carried out on a large scale, ideally based on international co-operation within a Federal World State. Within such overall planning, agriculture formulates its own rules on the organisation of the production and distribution of its products. Society 2000 has an educational and cultural system designed to develop initiative, responsibility, solidarity and a capacity in groups and individuals to solve problems and conflicts systematically and methodically. Institutions are open; they are developed by participation, and they are continually renewed. Science and technology are directed towards a full realisation of human qualities. Agriculture, through contact with nature, provides real enjoyment of leisure for everyone. It plays an important role in the formation of the individual, being a place of hospitality and encounter. In Society 2000, each individual is provided for according to his needs, and each individual is required to contribute according to his capabilities. Work is a moral stimulus, a right and a duty. There is a rotation in the organisation of “unpleasant” communal tasks. Agricultural production is organised in various forms of co-operation, based on the socialisation of land and other production factors. The disparity among different types of agriculture and farmer’s incomes has been eliminated.
Notes and references 1. For information
on the Urbanisation Project see an interim report “Urban Europe 2000: Progress of a Research Project” by Peter Hall in this issue of Futures. This project was outlined in Michel van Hulten, “Guide-lines for Plan Europe 2000’s Urbanisation Project”, Futures, Vol. 4, No. 1, March 1972, pages 68-74
FUTURES B
October 1973
448
Agriculture in Europe 2000
2. Project 4 (Agriculture) has the following Scientific Committee: Dr Gwyn E. Jones (United Kingdom), Chairman; Prof. M. de Benedictis (Italy); Prof. E. Q. de Castro Caldas (Portugal); Prof. M. CCp&de (France), representative: Mme A. Madec; Dr A. K. Constandse (The Netherlands) ; Prof. Odd Grande (Norway) ; Prof. Dr H. Kotter (Germany), former Chairman; Prof. L. G. de Oteyza (Spain), representative: Dr M. Bueno; Dr I. Vainio-Mattila (Finland). The main financial support is provided by the Gulbenkian Foundation, Lisbon 3. Gwyn E. Jones, Rural Life (London, Longman, 1973) 4. Wendell Bell and James Mau, The sociology of the Future (New York, Russel Sage Foundation, 197 1) 5. Stuart Sandow, “The pedagogy of planning: defining sufficient futures”, Futures, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1971, pages 324-337 6. From Means (1970), based on Florence R. Kluckholn and Fred L. Strodtbeck, “Variations in Value Orientations” 7. Barry J. Hake, “Values, Technology and Futurology”, Analysen und Prognosen (Berlin), Vol. 5, No. 1, 1973 8. Plan Europe 2000, Broadsheet 7, “Farming in Society towards the Year 2000”, April 1971 9. This method was developed with SocittC d’Animation Recherche et Etude Sociologiques (SARES), Paris. Mr Noel Cannat from SARES led most of the national workshops and made a first content analysis of their reports. 10. Umberto Eco, “Semiotic Approach to Acculturation and Participation”, in Fears and Hopes for European Urbanisation, edited by M. van Hulten (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1972) 11. Yehezkel Dror, Design for Policy Sciences (New York, American Elsevier, 1971) 12. Barry J. Hake, “Social and Cultural Futures in Western Europe” in Possible Futures of European Education (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1972) 13. Phase 1, the invention and synthesis of “possible futures”, ended with the European workshop in Wageningen, The Netherlands, l-5 May 1973 14. The participation in the national workshops, including the experimental workshop, breaks down as follows (in brackets for the European workshop) : farmers and farmers’ wives 35 (6); representatives of agricultural organisations 18 (3); business and industry 14 (3) ; agricultural experts 45 (17) ; other experts 27 (7) ; non-rural 47 (12) ; total participation 186 (48). National workshops were held in the following places: Le Vaudreuil, France (experimental) ; Caldas da Rainha, Portugal; Bakkeveen, The Netherlands; Certosa di Pontignano, Italy; Kungalv, Sweden (for Scandinavian countries); Coca, Spain; Keele, U.K.; Sommieres, France; Fredeburg, Germany; Barendorf, Germany (in order of occurrence). Participation in these workshops ranged from 14 to 24 15. L’Avenir Agricole (French and English edition), 1972 and 1973 16. These summaries have been published in an earlier article by the same authors in Analysen und Prognosen, 1973, No. 29 17. Participation in the national and European workshops by country breaks down as follows (in brackets figures for the European workshop) : France 34 (9) ; Portugal 24 (5) ; the Netherlands 20 (7) ; Italy 17 (3) ; Nordic countries 18 (9) ; Spain 22 (9); United Kingdom 20 (5); G ermany 31 (1). Age distribution in the European workshop was as follows: under 35: 16; between 35 and 50: 26; over 50: 7. There were 8 female participants 18. The final results of the workshops phase (to be presented in autumn 1974) will be subjected to further analysis, evaluation and elaboration
FUTURES
October 1973
Agriculture in Euro@ 2000
AGRICULTURE
IN EUROPE
2000
An interim report on a cross-national research project Anton J. Jansen and Steven Faith
The futures research programme initiated by the European Cultural Foundation, Amsterdam, in 1968, under the general title of Plan Europe 2000, consists of four projects: Education, Industrialisation, Urbanisation and Agricu1ture.l Work on the last Agriculture Project commenced in September 1970. The prime aim of the project is to provide alternative “guiding images” of the roles and functions which agriculture could fulfil in Western Europe in the future. 2 European countries are now predominantly urban nations. The latest OECD statistics of member countries reveal that the percentage of population occupied in agriculture, forestry and fishing ranges from 2.7% in the United Kingdom, through6*9% in the Netherlands and 13.4% in France, to the maximum of 31*10/o in Portugal. Industrialisation has reduced agriculture to a relatively minor position in the economies of these countries so that even in Portugal the percentage contribution from agriculture to the Gross Domestic Product is only 16%. The process of urbanisation together with migration from the countryside has been reducing the rural population in Western Europe, even producing virtual depopulation in isolated areas. Yet even in England, with such a small farming population, inhabitation of the rural areas including city fringes has been estimated by Gwyn Jones at 30%-and is growing today.3 This indicates some of the forces at play in Western European agriculture, which are creating immense social, economic and political problems. However, they are also blurring the distinction between rural and urban life. Urban people are moving to the countryside, and the declining farming populations are under the extreme pressures of intensifying production. Tonnies’s “Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft” differences-of rural social relationships being based on kinship, localism and on sharing responsibility as opposed to WESTERN
Anton J. Jansen is Project Director and Steven Faith is Assistant Director of the Agriculture Project of Plan Europe 2000. (European Cultural Foundation, Jan van Goyenkade 5, Amsterdam 1007, The Netherlands). The authors wish to thank Gwyn E. Jones for his help in the final drafting of this article.
FUTURES
October 1973
Agriculture in Europe 2000
439
urban social relationships based on rational calculation, vicissitude, and formal and limited responsibilities-still hold but with decreasing accuracy. It is in this environment of a particular rural social structure in varying degrees of breakdown and crisis that we have applied a futures research programme. We have not been concerned with studying methods of dealing with the symptoms of the “agricultural problem”; nor have we been involved in extrapolating today’s trends. Our futures research has aimed at discovering different roles for agriculture in relation to the whole society. We have defined this aim as building “alternative images” for the future of agriculture in society. Bell and Mau define an image of the future as “an expectation about the state of things to come at some future time. We may most usefully think of such expectations as a range of differentially probable possibilities rather than a single point on a continuum”.4 The nature of alternative images (or alternative futures) is an extremely complex one. All that alternative images of the future indicate is that a number of social goals exist in contemporary society, derived from different value systems. In terms of today’s political and social life, these social goals are vectors working against each other within contemporary society. The aim of futures research is to lift these social goals out of the present day situation and by structuring them within a logical and comparative framework to submit them for rational assessment. Therefore the alternative images which are to be constructed should be qualitatively different from each other, radically contrasted in value commitment, in priorities and in power structure. As will be described later, our approach to the construction of alternative images has been analysed on the basis of four categories of social power: economic, political, cultural and communal. The technique which we have used to elevate the social goals from the present day situation has included imagination, invention, anticipation and reflection. As will be described, we have held workshops, consisting of groups of people involved in agriculture and rural life, in eight Western European countries. The scientific use of subjectivity expressed in this way is, of course, a very as Stuart Sandow delicate operation. It has been necessary to understand, points out, that “goals are cliches to all but their advocates”.5 The creative exposition of goals is further hindered by the virtual absence of research into “values”, so that the imaginative process is the only technique applicable. We have attempted to understand the values implied in the goals expressed in the workshops through the application of value-object questions based on the work of Kluckholn and Strodtbeck, and we shall examine the value-shifts that resulLs The approach chosen by the agriculture project of Plan Europe 2000 falls into the category of “critical futurology” described by Barry Hake who works on the Education Project of Plan Europe 2000.’ Hake presents four categories of futurology: surprise-free, crisis, critical and constructive. Critical futurology assumes a basic value-shift to be occurring in present society, different values and goals being seen to reside in different social groups in the present social system. However, while critical futurology is characterised by a high consideration of alternative value systems, it is also characterised by a low level consideration of the strategies essential to the implementation of the alternatives suggested.
FUTURES
October 1973
440
Agriculture in Europe 2000
This criticism, although it fails to appreciate that a strategy-free technique is essential in order to reveal alternative images, is nevertheless a timely warning that any futures research project must eventually return to reality. Our technique, characterised by subjectivity in the early stages of the research, will lead later on in the project to rational and cognitive methods. In defining the aims of this project on the future of agriculture in Western Europe, we started from the recognition of a continuing agricultural crisis in the area, often referred to as the “agricultural problem”. At the basis of this problem, which has been one of the major political issues in Europe over the last 50 years or so, lies the incomplete and unequal integration of the traditional peasant economic system into a dynamic, so-called industrial society. Agricultural policies have failed to find solutions to this problem. Their sectorial and short-term “problem-oriented” approaches have even contrisocial and cultural isolation of a subbuted to a continuing economic, stantial part of the farming community and of rural regions, and to growing disparities in income and social welfare between categories of farmers and between rural regions. On the other hand, agricultural policies have been unable to formulate answers to new values and needs developing in society which directly affect the farming community and its activities. These policies, also, have been and are lacking in a real European and even more in a world-wide perspective, considering agricultural problems within rather artificial dividing lines, set by national or “common market” realities. It is our basic assumption that the roles which agriculture plays in society contain the clues to a solution of the agricultural problem. Therefore the fundamental question to be answered is, “What does European society want the roles of farming to be ?“. Thus the final aims of this project are to provide a frame of reference for a new approach to the agricultural problem, a set of guiding images intended to elucidate the choices that will have to be made and the decisions that will have to be taken on behalf of the future development of agriculture in Europe. As different interest groups tend to set different goals for the future of agriculture, any thinking on the desirable future development of agriculture has to take this political reality into account. Therefore, in the first stages of this project, we have tried to define images of alternative futures for agriculture in Europe through a dialogue between science and society. These alternative definitions of what should and/or could be the roles of agriculture in society around the year 2000 might appear to be strongly related to the positions taken already by particular “interest groups” in Europe (say, by all farmers’ organisations working towards alternative x, by all the environmentalist lobbies aiming for alternative y), but which might find their supporters throughout these interest groups. This is one of the reasons why, in the first stage of the project, we have approached interested individuals for participation in national workshops, instead of asking organisations and institutions to send delegates. As we stated in our first, background brochure: “Our ideal is that within the framework of this project a permanent dialogue should be established between society and science on the possible future roles of farming in society. Alternative answers, of course, will most probably emerge; they should be tested and compared with each other. But, if scientists and experts wish to make a contribution
FUTURES
October 1973
Agriculture in Eurofe 2000
441
to the solution of societal problems, society should be engaged from the beginning in the definition of these problems”.*
The method
and programme
of research
CItaracler of the method. Our aim in this research was to reveal existing social goals for the future of agriculture in relation to society as a whole. Our method, in the initial stages, relied on a creative effort of imagination on the part of some of those who work in or who are involved with agriculture. g In workshops held in eight Western European countries, we asked groups to describe their goals for the future of society and the roles that farming should play in such a society. This method is in fact one which is well described in futures research-that of “utopia writing”. IIowever, this method of research has been criticised for its low relevance to existing situations and to the strategies necessary for change. Umberto Eco, in a study for the urbanisation project of Plan Europe 2000, presents the criticism that “essentially futurology thinks in a non-political way about supposed problems of the future which are actually political problems of today”. lo In our research project, we have made a determined effort to produce a method of futures writing which overcomes this weakness. By involving dzi$erent interest grou@, holding different value commitments, we are directly involved in the political battles of today, but within the arena of abstract futures. Moreover, by attempting to reveal alternative images, we are at the heart of values in contemporary society; as Dror points out, “there are parts of policy sciences which are involved in the invention of different alternative futures, including their value contents. As a result, policy sciences constitute a breach in the solid wall separating contemporary sciences from ethics and the philosophy of values”. 1l Workshops for reuealing social futures. A “workshop”, in the sense in which the term is used in this project, is a meeting of people in which something is constructed. In the case of Plan Europe 2000, Project 4 (Agriculture), it was the construction of contrasted group visions of the future, in which an attempt has been made to answer four questions: l l l l
What What What What
are your goals for society in the future? should be the roles of farming in such a society? will be the obstacles to a natural evolution to such a society? will be the necessary changes?
The nature of the workshops was one of subjectivity or, as we described it to the participants in the workshop, of irre$mibiZi~. “You will be encouraged to be irresponsible in the sense that you can express how you feel the future should be”. We were asking the participants in the national workshops to try to think freely and not just within their present day responsibilities and constraints. The national workshops (excluding an experimental one) each began with “brainstorming” on the goals for a controlled discussion of the first question-a the future of society, This was one of the main exercises in creativity, from which ideas emerged which set the framework for the workshop, Following on
FUTURES
October
WT3
442
Agriculture in Europe 2000
from this brainstorming, participants produced “individual sketches” which allowed personal expression, and also provided the means for arranging common interest groups. These groups then devoted their attention to answering, in turn, the four questions, thus producing the contrasted group visions-alled “group sketches”. Group sketches from the national workshops represent the first crude product of Project 4. They are relatively structured and contain a large number of “pointers to futures”. Through a detailed content analysis, an attempt has been made to order these pointers into “families”, called “key sketches”; these are the precursors of “alternative images”. The structuring of key sketches. A preliminary content analysis of the national workshop sketches revealed that they contained four main streams of thought (“key sketches”). These were then subjected to a full-scale structural analysis, the structural themes being based on four categories of social power. Hake defines social power as “the positive capacity of social groups to control their institutional situations which comprise the social structure”.ls We developed four categories for the analysis of the national workshop sketches : a. Economic power: the aims and functions of economic activity, production and consumption patterns, the type of regulation of the economic activity, and their international dimensions. b. Political power: the structure and distribution of political power, the mechanisms of decision making, communication, planning and administration, and their international dimensions. c. Cultural power: the forms of values and knowledge, the forms of socialisation, mechanisms for creating values and knowledge, and innovation and social change. d. Communal power: social roles and statuses, obligations and commitments, work and non-work, the patterns of settlement, and the structure of neighbourhood and family. Using these four types of social power as content analysis categories, whole national workshop sketches (which had during the preliminary analysis been allocated within a key sketch) were broken down into a collection of quotations, and each quotation placed within one of the social power categories. In this way the structural themes of each key sketch were constructed. On the basis of these structural themes constructed for each key sketch, summaries and working documents for the four key sketches were prepared for the next stage of the research, the European workshop. A workshop for building social futures. The European workshop, designed to build up the key sketches towards alternative images, was the conclusion of stage one of Project 4. On the basis of “structural themes”, working documents on society and on agriculture were prepared. These documents were intended to display the quotations, so that the participants in the European workshop could use them as building blocks for more concrete structures. Whereas the national workshops had relied on the subjective processes, the European workshop depended on the ability of participants to consider rationally a particular format for society and the roles that agriculture should play in that society. Participants
FUTURES
October 1973
Agriculture in Eurofie 2000
443
in the European workshop were not encouraged to discuss strategies for the achievement of their goals but to concentrate more on how real in terms of their own internal logic and consistency were the key sketches. In this way would emerge four or more (or fewer) alternative images which would be the precursors of the next stage of the work, the study of the change requirements, of the feasibility and desirability of the alternatives being produced. Th research programme. Early in 1971 a general programme for the project agreed upon by its scientific committee, comprising three main phases: l invention and synthesis of “possible futures”; in this phase the would be mainly entrusted to workshops; l analysis, evaluation and elaboration, in which these “possible (alternative images) would be subjected to scientific studies; 0 implementation.
was
research futures”
It was hoped that the first two phases could be concluded by the end of 1972. In fact, the presentation of alternative images, the final product of the first phase, will not be possible until October 1973. This delay has been mainly caused by an underestimation of the problems involved in the organisation of 10 nationalworkshops in eight European countries.13
The national workshops In May 1971, a start was made on collecting, through local informants, the names of possible participants in the national workshops being planned. Four broad categories of participants were considered: (1) Agriculture: farmers, farmers’ wives and officials of farmers’ organisations ; (2) Business and industry : in particular those connected with agricultural activities; (3) Experts: agricultural and general scientific workers; (4) Environment: people concerned with agriculture’s future development from outside the agricultural activity as such. In this way, 2 000 names and addresses were collected and from these, according to their responses, a selection was made with respect to age, sex, and optimal balance between representatives of the four categories mentioned above.14 All the national workshops (December 1971-June 1972) had the same programme, directed towards answering the four questions mentioned earlier. Reports and summaries of the workshops’ proceedings were published in autumn 1972 and early in 1973. I5 The summaries assembled together a collection of the most characterising quotations, drawn from the national workshop sketches, which had been allocated to each key sketch.ls
The European workshop Participation in the European workshop was limited to former national workshop participants, mainly because the European workshop was an integral part of a dialogue between 186 Europeans who thus had the opportunity to confront each other and to develop and synthesise their ideas on a European level. All the national workshop participants were approached by questionnaire to enquire whether they would be able and willing to attend the European
FUTURES
October 1973
444
Agriculture in Europe 2000
workshop. About 80 favourable replies were received, but finally only 48 of them could attend the European Workshop. (The project staff had always considered 50 as an optimal participation.) Of course, through this selection process some disparities in the actual participation could not be prevented, in particular referring to national representati0n.l’ The fact that the European workshop in Wageningen had to be operated in two languages (French and English) also deterred a certain number of former national workshop participants. Before coming to Wageningen, participants had been asked to choose the key-sketch which they would prefer to work on in the European workshop. On the basis of these choices, four “key-groups” were constituted, and started with a discussion on standardised versions of the original summaries. Then the four “key-groups” operated independently of each other and each, in a working document called “Structural themes”, defined its main objectives for Society 2000, ie what should be the future roles of agriculture within the framework of these general objectives, and how these roles would be organised. The images of agriculture in 2000 produced in this way, therefore, should not only describe the roles which it should fulfil in future society, but also provide a first appraisal of what this would mean in terms of the economic, political, cultural and social organisation of agriculture within the society.ls
Concluding
remarks
A research project which aims at revealing alternative images of the future through a subjective method of workshops is of course exploratory work. At the outset of the programme one could only anticipate that different interest groups would produce different sets of goals for the future of agriculture in society. The abundance of ideas about-and of fears and hopes for-the future, and the constructive proposals derived from workshops operating within a background of different cultures, are in themselves a very interesting product of the process; this is over and above any system or patterns into which they may fall. The development of these different views and goals is an impressive proof of the place of participation and subjectivity in futures research. The ideas are not “new” in any sense-they have been put forward before by various individuals in relation to many varying problems and situations. What makes the ideas “original” is their production by groups of people who are involved in a particular industry and way of life and who have attempted, as groups, to build a structured overview of the society as a whole and the future roles of agriculture within it.
Summaries of the four key sketches The summaries given below are in the same form and order as they were in the first working document presented to the participants of the European workshop. As already stated, although we did not intend to change their content, there was a change in form in comparison to the summaries presented earlier, in order to formulate them more clearly. The four summaries are written in the present tense, but depict the future. In
FUTURES
October 1873
Agriculture inEurope2000 445
fact, they were considered to be precursors of the images to be developed in the European workshop on agriculture in the society of the year 2000. Key sketch 1 Society 2000 offers each individual the possibility of developing his own capacities and guarantees security to everyone. The state only has a monitoring function in order to avoid abuse. Therefore both individuals and groups must develop a sense of responsibility as a basis for personal liberty and public welfare. Agriculture participates in this society on an equal footing with other interest groups. Society 2000 has an economic system which functions efficiently, but not at the cost of public welfare. In this system, agriculture is a 100% partner of both the manufacturing and the service industries, and is not dependent on government aid. In producing food and raw materials, its main task is to meet the demands of society for optimal productivity of land, capital and labour. Therefore agricultural production is concentrated in the most favourable locations, using up-to-date technology for elaborate rationalisation of production and according to economic principles. Horizontal and vertical integration in agriculture is promoted. In general, the maintenance of an entrepreneurial system is the best means of guaranteeing the efficient performance of the economic system. Parliamentary democracy is being further developed on the basis of responsible cooperation between interest groups, which limits bureaucracy to the absolute minimum. The state only interferes as an arbitrator. Regional and national planning ensure a functional organisation of space and land use, and the optimal location of production activities. Nature conservation and the provision of leisure facilities are mainly the responsibility of the public authorities and not a particular task of agriculture. In general, development, based on the principles of a market economy, is not distorted by political influences. Society 2000 respects private property as a basis for personal development. All the different talents are promoted by a free educational system offering facilities to those taking advantage of them. Everyone has freedom in choice of occupation and equal opportunities. Leisure is considered as a source of creativity and enjoyment. Agriculture is no longer identified as a separate way of life; a new rural mentality has developed which is of a professional nature. The public is better informed about the role and importance of agriculture. Ideally, in Society 2000, no one wishes to change his social position. Marginal groups are integrated by means of increased social and geographical mobility. The world of work is being further humanised, but income is still related to performance. Farmers are professionals in their own right, and receive incomes which compare with those in other sectors of production. Key sketch 2 Society 2000 considers the quality of life as its first priority. Individuality of taste and custom is allowed within a stable system whose demands on raw materials do not exceed the resources of the earth. This society strives for a stabilisation of population, has abandoned growth economics as a basis for action, and exercises strong control on any form of environmental deterioration. This implies that the individual has learned to control the drive for material expansion. Agriculture is the only production process harnessing solar energy which does not have damaging side effects on the environment. Economic activity is determined by planning the rational use of resources and energy. Quality is a basic criterion with a stress on durable products rather than planned
FUTURES
October 1973
446
Agriculture in Europe 2000
obsolescence. Agriculture has a twofold function: food production and the management of land and water resources. Farming is paid for both these functions. Production is organised on a regional basis in order to reduce the need for the transport of goods and the consumption of energy. This implies the maintenance of a diversified farm structure. Land management involves the promotion of good husbandry and the development of production techniques which require a minimum input of non-renewable resources. International co-operation ensures world planning of resources and the control of pollution and waste. World-wide competition for resources is checked by a planned reduction of affluence in the developed countries. Regional autonomy allows democratic expression at the local level. Agricultural production is based on regional needs, within the context of international control of land use. In 2000, ecological principles and ethics are taught at every level on the basis of their necessity for human survival on this planet. Schools and parents emphasise co-operation as a better principle of life than competition. Science and research are primarily directed to the maintenance and renewal of the earth’s resources. Agriculture and forestry, as a secondary function, provide recreation facilities which help man to act against his materialistic instincts. Society 2000 is differentiated in such a way that each member is able to find in it a place suited to his own character and capabilities. Work, leisure and housing have become more integrated: part-time work is generally accepted as an alternative to a short working week. The urban population is more involved in physical work in the countryside. There has been a renaissance of the local rural community. Key sketch 3 Society 2000 enables the individual to satisfy his needs for self-fulfilment and the enjoyment of life. It operates on the principle of providing “pleasure” without making a distinction between work and leisure. It offers the possibility of giving respect to human dignity and personality, while admitting that there are numerous constraints in the organisation of society. Therefore creative freedom and social responsibility are its first priorities. Agriculture is recognised as a meaningful way of life, and it provides the population with the means of releasing the mental pressures of urbanisation through the joy of contact with nature. In Society 2000 there is a growing trend towards economic justice: there is control of accumulated wealth. There is a tendency towards the equalisation of incomes, and the needs of the Third World have been recognised on the world market. Each individual has a minimum guaranteed income, whatever his activities, but a certain amount of competition is maintained to allow scope for achievement. Voluntary limitation of consumption is encouraged. Agricultural production is organised on a world scale: the quality of its products ranks above quantity. Society 2000 is based on the free adhesion of individuals. This ensures a total participation by the individual in decision making, which leads to the suppression of bondage in all its forms. This participation depends on a reduction of coercion, on the elimination of bureaucracy, and on improved information and educational services. There exists a world-wide dt%ente. Society 2000 has an open educational and cultural system, directed towards the free creation of values. The primary aim of education is to increase the individual’s capacities for (self) criticism and communication with others : to enable him effectively to influence his future. Work, leisure and study are integrated into permanent education, which forms the basis of a dynamic society. Technology is used to overcome excessive specialisation and to increase social and cultural mobility. Agriculture plays
FUTURES
October 1973
Agriculture in Europe 2000
447
a specific role in encouraging the understanding of the basic ecology and priorities of life, being an example of life’s rhythm. In Society 2000, new styles of life are continuously developing; traditional concepts being broken down. Individuals choose freely between a variety of ways of life, and feel free to change them. The disparity between rural and urban ways of life has disappeared. Also in agriculture, work is a duty and a means of personal fulfilment at the same time: intellectual and manual work are inseparable. Co-operative forms of working the land and community living have been realised.
Key sketch4 Society 2000 consists of one community of egalitarian interests, achieved through a radical transformation of the class society. It guarantees equality of rights and opportunities for all. The guiding values are solidarity and the integration of individual and group capacities. Money is no longer a source of power and prestige. The progress of society is measured in terms of social and civic development. Agriculture is a key sector in society, and is no longer subordinated to the powers of industrialisation and urbanisation. In Society 2000, the collectivity exercises permanent control over economic and social affairs; the community decides which goods and services to produce, and which resources to utilise. There is no private property, but only private and temporal use. Individual motivation is directed towards a higher common good. Agriculture produces the basic food for national and international needs within the framework of a Global Agricultural Policy. The community has placed environmental considerations amongst those of production. Society 2000 is based on participation, understood as the will for self-government by groups and communities. Power is on a human scale: a political, decentralised organisation allows individuals to express themselves. Economic and social planning is carried out on a large scale, ideally based on international co-operation within a Federal World State. Within such overall planning, agriculture formulates its own rules on the organisation of the production and distribution of its products. Society 2000 has an educational and cultural system designed to develop initiative, responsibility, solidarity and a capacity in groups and individuals to solve problems and conflicts systematically and methodically. Institutions are open; they are developed by participation, and they are continually renewed. Science and technology are directed towards a full realisation of human qualities. Agriculture, through contact with nature, provides real enjoyment of leisure for everyone. It plays an important role in the formation of the individual, being a place of hospitality and encounter. In Society 2000, each individual is provided for according to his needs, and each individual is required to contribute according to his capabilities. Work is a moral stimulus, a right and a duty. There is a rotation in the organisation of “unpleasant” communal tasks. Agricultural production is organised in various forms of co-operation, based on the socialisation of land and other production factors. The disparity among different types of agriculture and farmer’s incomes has been eliminated.
Notes and references 1. For information
on the Urbanisation Project see an interim report “Urban Europe 2000: Progress of a Research Project” by Peter Hall in this issue of Futures. This project was outlined in Michel van Hulten, “Guide-lines for Plan Europe 2000’s Urbanisation Project”, Futures, Vol. 4, No. 1, March 1972, pages 68-74
FUTURES B
October 1973
448
Agriculture in Europe 2000
2. Project 4 (Agriculture) has the following Scientific Committee: Dr Gwyn E. Jones (United Kingdom), Chairman; Prof. M. de Benedictis (Italy); Prof. E. Q. de Castro Caldas (Portugal); Prof. M. CCp&de (France), representative: Mme A. Madec; Dr A. K. Constandse (The Netherlands) ; Prof. Odd Grande (Norway) ; Prof. Dr H. Kotter (Germany), former Chairman; Prof. L. G. de Oteyza (Spain), representative: Dr M. Bueno; Dr I. Vainio-Mattila (Finland). The main financial support is provided by the Gulbenkian Foundation, Lisbon 3. Gwyn E. Jones, Rural Life (London, Longman, 1973) 4. Wendell Bell and James Mau, The sociology of the Future (New York, Russel Sage Foundation, 197 1) 5. Stuart Sandow, “The pedagogy of planning: defining sufficient futures”, Futures, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1971, pages 324-337 6. From Means (1970), based on Florence R. Kluckholn and Fred L. Strodtbeck, “Variations in Value Orientations” 7. Barry J. Hake, “Values, Technology and Futurology”, Analysen und Prognosen (Berlin), Vol. 5, No. 1, 1973 8. Plan Europe 2000, Broadsheet 7, “Farming in Society towards the Year 2000”, April 1971 9. This method was developed with SocittC d’Animation Recherche et Etude Sociologiques (SARES), Paris. Mr Noel Cannat from SARES led most of the national workshops and made a first content analysis of their reports. 10. Umberto Eco, “Semiotic Approach to Acculturation and Participation”, in Fears and Hopes for European Urbanisation, edited by M. van Hulten (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1972) 11. Yehezkel Dror, Design for Policy Sciences (New York, American Elsevier, 1971) 12. Barry J. Hake, “Social and Cultural Futures in Western Europe” in Possible Futures of European Education (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1972) 13. Phase 1, the invention and synthesis of “possible futures”, ended with the European workshop in Wageningen, The Netherlands, l-5 May 1973 14. The participation in the national workshops, including the experimental workshop, breaks down as follows (in brackets for the European workshop) : farmers and farmers’ wives 35 (6); representatives of agricultural organisations 18 (3); business and industry 14 (3) ; agricultural experts 45 (17) ; other experts 27 (7) ; non-rural 47 (12) ; total participation 186 (48). National workshops were held in the following places: Le Vaudreuil, France (experimental) ; Caldas da Rainha, Portugal; Bakkeveen, The Netherlands; Certosa di Pontignano, Italy; Kungalv, Sweden (for Scandinavian countries); Coca, Spain; Keele, U.K.; Sommieres, France; Fredeburg, Germany; Barendorf, Germany (in order of occurrence). Participation in these workshops ranged from 14 to 24 15. L’Avenir Agricole (French and English edition), 1972 and 1973 16. These summaries have been published in an earlier article by the same authors in Analysen und Prognosen, 1973, No. 29 17. Participation in the national and European workshops by country breaks down as follows (in brackets figures for the European workshop) : France 34 (9) ; Portugal 24 (5) ; the Netherlands 20 (7) ; Italy 17 (3) ; Nordic countries 18 (9) ; Spain 22 (9); United Kingdom 20 (5); G ermany 31 (1). Age distribution in the European workshop was as follows: under 35: 16; between 35 and 50: 26; over 50: 7. There were 8 female participants 18. The final results of the workshops phase (to be presented in autumn 1974) will be subjected to further analysis, evaluation and elaboration
FUTURES
October 1973