Integrating Rural Women – EU policies and the evolution rural development


Gusztáv Nemes
Centre for the Rural Economy, University of Newcastle
 Zsuzsanna Fazekas
University of Horticulture, St István University, Budapest
—————————————————————————————————————

Introduction

According to experts and the rhetoric of a number of EU documents (The future of rural society (Commission 1988), Agenda 2000 (Commission 1997), etc.) the success of an integrated, neo-endogenous approach to rural development is crucial for the future of Europe’s rural areas. Such an approach aims to enhance local development and unlock local resources through empowerment and participation of rural inhabitants, while tackling structural problems and backwardness through top-down spatial and sectoral policies. At the same time, rural women have a crucial role for this approach. They represent not only community values, family and cultural traditions, but innovation, entrepreneurship and a large proportion of human resources in general. Conditions, usually thought to be essential for successful community based, participatory development (such as mutual understanding, social networks, co-operation and a common, positive vision on the future) is hardly conceivable without the full participation of rural women. Through volunteer work and the participation in various programmes, women’s networks often prove to be very effective in delivering social policy or lacking services in rural areas. This has been widely recognised by policy makers in Europe and these networks are increasingly used by EU and domestic policies for channelling funds and delivering central initiatives in rural areas (Commission 1998/a).
Nevertheless, there is strong empirical evidence on the exodus of women from rural areas all over Europe (Co. Women, especially the young, educated ones, are leaving backward rural locations to start new life and carrier in cities, more frequently than man (Commission 2000/a). This is likely to have serious consequences for the future of these areas. Without the active participation of women, social networks do not work and community life is diminishing. Without young women to establish families, create and raise a new generation becomes impossible, and young men are also likely to soon disappear from rural locations. All this can result in a great loss of human resources in these areas, making local development impossible, painting in dark colours the future of these areas. European policy makers recognised these tendencies, and are trying to do something to prevent these scenarios. There are two basic directions of policy making in this field. The so called ‘equality policies’ and the support for local development activities in rural areas. The following will shortly explore these policy fields, investigating their possible effects on rural women. Then we will highlight some important issues concerning the coming eastern enlargement of the European Union, finally make some conclusions and recommendations concerning the topic.

The ‘equality policies’

Equality, and the full participation of all social groups in local development activities are extremely important for an integrated or neo-endogenous approach to rural development. Social networks, local customs and cultural values (all essential resources for local development), are often best preserved by otherwise disadvantaged social groups (such as ethnic groups, the elderly or women) in backward rural areas. Though, these resources can only be utilized for local development, if the involved social groups are included and fully participating in the development process.
In general, EU policy rhetoric strongly supports the equality of women, and ‘gender’ alongside sustainability or participation, has also become one of the main buzzwords for rural development policies. Legislative background for this was established by articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, making „the elimination of inequalities and the promotion of equality between women and men” a central principle of Community policy and action (EC 1999). Also in the period of 1994 – 1999 the principle of equal opportunities for women and men got a stressed role in actions supported by the Structural Funds, including the production of appropriate statistics. The General Regulation on the Structural Funds for the period 2000-2006 contains substantially new features regarding the principle of equal opportunities for women and men. Institutional background was established by the appointment of Equality Commissioners, who became responsible to oversee the systematic incorporation of this dimension into all community policies and activities.
The key concept of changes in the regulation is ‘gender mainstreaming’ which is a legal obligation of programmes supported by the Structural Funds. According to the rhetoric, this approach aims to ensure sustained and integrated efforts to overcome the persistent inequalities between women and men that exist in all member states. It refers to inequalities in relation to rates of inactivity and unemployment; participation in full-time, part-time and atypical work; pay and conditions of employment; rates of enterprise creation and growth; sharing of unpaid domestic and family care work etc. Women living in remote or marginalized communities may meet this difficulties concentrated. In order to destroy these disparities the minimum requirement of the plan or programme is the involvement of organisations representing equal opportunities issues in the Monitoring Committees and in the partnerships managing the assistance; and balanced participation of women and men within the Monitoring Committees. Project applications will be classified according to their contribution to equality objectives which means that a potentially equality-negative operation might be marked for rejection or redesign.
These policies and legislation have two main aims. One is to create an appropriate legislative institutional and legislative background for equality issues. The other one is to create a generally supportive social and policy environment (sometimes even allowing for positive discrimination) for disadvantaged or excluded social groups, including women. Nevertheless, these aspirations, by nature, come from a central political, top-down approach. Concerning this, two questions should be asked.
One is that: how effective central directives and legislation can be in achieving equality and avoiding social exclusion? As experts say, appropriate legislation and policies are necessary, but not sufficient circumstances to achieve these aims. They are usually implemented through existing and often quite conservative institutional systems, which can water down programmes and central indications for social, political changes. Central policies and aspirations for change can only bring satisfactory results, if implementing agencies and institutions incorporate new philosophies and central rhetoric. To change existing institutions or build new ones to fulfil this task is a much more time consuming and costly process than making new legislations. Therefore, to enforce European philosophies and legislation, concerning gender and equality, is difficult and has not always been successful, even with the best intentions of all the actors of this process.
The other question is that: in itself how helpful is a generally supportive social and legislative environment for rural women and the development of rural areas? This is a very difficult question to answer, since there are many influencing factors. However, some international comparison, such as comparing the Republic of Ireland and Sweden, can give some indication for the answer (Commission 2000/a). In Sweden issues of gender, equality and all type of social inclusion has long been on the political agenda. Society is built mostly on social-liberal and communitarian values. On the other hand, the well-developed welfare system ensured the provision of social services (transport, care for children and the elderly, banking, shopping facilities, etc.) not only in urban, but also in rural areas. In Ireland, the society is rather built on catholic, conservative values, which are not particularly supportive for gender related issues. The importance of this topic for the domestic in political arena only appeared in recent years. On the other hand, the welfare state is much less developed and the provision of social services very low or non-existing in most rural areas. In these two countries, circumstances and the general social and political environment for gender related rural development issues are significantly different. However, figures, showing out-migration of women from backward rural areas are still very similar. Based on these one could suggest that, a supportive legislative and policy environment is necessary but not sufficient factor for avoiding the exodus of rural women and ensuring their full participation in rural development activities.

Gender and the neo-endogenous approach – support for local development activities
As we mentioned in the introduction, local development have an increasing importance within rural development in Europe. One of the main reasons for this is the still ongoing transformation of the rural economy. In the past rural areas were considered primarily as places for primary production, providing food, row material and human labour for the people and the industry of the rapidly developing cities. This role was supported by the centre through sectoral (mainly agricultural) policies. Recently, for a variety of reasons, this situation has changed significantly. The share of agriculture and other types of primary production within the rural economy have been greatly reduced, and other functions gained more importance. Today the rural economy is becoming increasingly diversified, the provision of public goods (clean and pleasant environment e.g.), space for recreation and living are becoming more and more important concerning rural areas. Together with this, the social and economic picture have become more complex and the old top-down, sectoral policies are not able to handle rural problems. All this is resulting in the growing importance of bottom-up, local development activities. The ‘old top-down system’ was built on central decision-making, politics, bureaucracy and high level institutions – a playing field, traditionally built on ‘man values and abilities’, from which women have often been partially or totally excluded. On the contrary, the new ‘bottom-up system’ is usually built on social networks, kinship relations and local knowledge, a playing field in which women have better abilities and a traditionally more important role. This means that a growing emphasis on local resources and local development at the same time means a growing importance and role of women in the development process and in rural economy and society as a whole.
Rural tourism could be mentioned as a good example for this, which can be found all over Europe from the Greek islands to the Irish Republic and Scandinavia. When farm incomes started decreasing, many family farms started B&B, catering or small retail businesses to gain some supplementary income. These businesses were usually run by women. As a consequence of the ‘90s’ agricultural crisis and the booming of rural tourism these business often became the primary source of income and the women became the breadwinners of the family. According to a number of empirical studies, this often changed their status not only in the family, but also within the local community (Braithwaite 2001, Bennett 2001). One could state that, rural areas need local development activities, which can hardly work without the active participation of women. At the same time, if the local economy and society is reinforced through activities in which local women have a crucial role, it is likely to reinforce their social and economic role within family and local society. At the end of the day, local development helps to realise and reinforce equality and social justice, serving the interest of rural society as a whole.
As a result of the last 15 years' evolution of EU rural policies, an endogenous and integrated development philosophy has emerged, which is hoped to be appropriate to reach the twofold objectives of cohesion and diversity. This approach is territorial, rather than sectoral, builds on local resources and reinforces the ability of local communities to control their own socio-economic well-being (Ray 2001). This development philosophy is widely referenced and has become the rhetoric for EU documents and speeches today. Also, the successive reforms of structural and cohesion policies, as well as the emergence of new requirements (such as subsidiarity, partnership, programming) in EU policy measures made the first steps on the way of realisation of this philosophy. If all this is understood as an evolutionary trend or a long-term objective, then the integrated approach can be identified as the future way of making and implementing development policies in the EU.
However, the fundamental change in rural policies still has not occurred, as short term policy goals and implemented measures are quite different from long term expectations. Repeated attempts at cutting subsidies have not been successful and the vast majority of the CAP's budget still supports well off farmers and over-intensified production. The transformation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) into an Integrated Rural Policy (IRP) - urged by widely referenced documents, such as the 'Future of rural society' (1988), the Cork Declaration (1996) or the Delors' Packages (?) - is still in the unforeseeable future. A reason for this is that, despite all of transformations and restructuring, the general view of rurality in Western Europe can still be characterised with a strong agricultural, top-down, sectoral orientation. Agricultural interest groups and lobby organisations (such as national farmers' unions in the Member States, or the COPA) are still very strong. The present system is backed by long traditions of the CAP, well-developed institutions and bureaucracy in the EU as well as at national level (Kola 1999, Nemes 1999, Lowe and Brouwer 2000). Though the rhetoric of EU policies has changed significantly, one could say that rural policies are still being made within the framework of the productivist agricultural paradigm (Hall 1993). Reforms, initiated from within, have not been able to shift the ruling paradigm, or change the system fundamentally. To meet such challenges, strong outside forces are needed.

Eastern enlargement and rural development
Compared to Western Europe, CEE rural areas in general are not simply backward, they are different. Normally they have a more traditional society, economy and more natural resources, all advantageous for an integrated, sustainable approach to rural development. This means tackling structural problems and backwardness through top-down spatial and sectoral policies, while unlocking local resources through empowerment and participation. CEE has long been on a different development trajectory, therefore the EU system should not be simply copied, but alternative approaches and development models should be found. Based on their internal resources and EU assistance, future Member States could become an experimental field and then a driving force for the long wanted fundamental reform of EU rural policies. There are rhetorical signs for such an evolution, but current public policies do not support this direction sufficiently. With the opening of the accession negotiations, the Commission rearranged the philosophy of the Phare Programme to focus on those objectives that have direct importance in the preparations for membership, mainly in the fields of institution building and investment . The new pre-accession programmes were also designed according to these ideas. They do not start from the reality of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). They do not tackle the real socio-economic problems of rural areas, they do not aim to maintain cultural and natural diversity, or to reach a fair degree of economic and social cohesion in the foreseeable future. Instead, they serve budgetary constraints and maintain the objectives, structure and procedures of the present CAP, the Structural and Cohesion Policies in a top-down, centralized manner, without quality changes of the system. Beyond the rhetoric, the main aim of the pre-accession strategy is to improve the accessibility of the official system, markets and territory of the CEE countries for the policies, goods and capital investment of the EU. The primary objective is to build a strong, Euro-conform bureaucracy on a central or governmental level, which will be able to work with the complicated official system of the EU in the near future. The secondary objective is to ameliorate physical accessibility, mainly through building international motorway connections, and, to a smaller extent, improving airports, railways and trunk roads. The third objective is connected to environmental threats of international importance, aiming to reduce water and air pollution and the better management of municipal waste. Environment is the field of which Hungary is most lagging behind EU requirements. However, according to the proposals, this is also the field, where we will have the most derogations, therefore the environment will not be an obstacle in the way of EU membership. Concerning rural areas, the main objective is to prepare CEE for the agricultural restructuring policies of the EU, and the insertion of CEE agriculture into the EU in a subsidiary and very unequal position.
Most of these developments are very much needed in CEE. They are useful and welcomed by the applicant countries. However, they are (at least) equally useful from the viewpoint of the short/mid-term economic and political interests of the present EU15 . They try to smooth the accession process for the present EU, rather than for the applicant countries. On the other hand, the building of capacities and adequate institutions for rural development on regional, sub-regional and local level is almost totally lacking in the pre-accession strategy. There are insufficient resources for identifying real problems, finding appropriate rural development models, building local partnerships, or reinforcing rural communities in any other way. There is no real intention to preserve cultural and natural diversity, to explore and use local resources. In other words, the endogenous approach is almost totally missing from the pre-accession strategy. Moreover, the requirement of additionality ties the bulk of domestic and local resources to EU funds and objectives too. In this way, the pre-accession strategy may even prevent endogenous development philosophy and practice from spreading in CEE.
One could say that the pre-accession strategy concentrates mainly on political and economic cohesion. It supports almost exclusively such objectives which can be justified with short to mid-term political and economic interests and it is designed in a very much centralized, top-down manner. Social cohesion, the reinforcement of local economy and society and, in general, the aims of an endogenous, integrated approach to rural development are almost totally lacking. According to the present proposals the main aim is to minimise the shock of the accession, but for the present EU, rather than for the applicant countries.
According to today's proposals, there will not be any significant changes in EU policies because of the eastern enlargement. However, much of the evolution of EU policy making has been a result of problems, raised by previous enlargements (the southern enlargement and the connected reforms in Structural and Cohesion Policies could be the best example). According to this experience such a significant enlargement as the Eastern European one is likely to bring about significant changes in policy making. Considering that, much of the expected problems are rooted in rural areas, poverty and a need for sustainable change, the largest challenge should be expected in the field of rural, cohesion and development policies. This might bring about significant changes, if not in the pre-accession period, then during the first years of membership. Concerning the 'compensation payments', there has been some discussion in the EU about giving the equivalent amount to the CEE countries, although not for direct agricultural subsidies, but for sustainable, or integrated rural development. This money, some Euro 7-8000 million/year, if coupled with a clear strategy, could make a significant change, turning the theories of the sustainable development approach into practise.

Conclusions and recommendations
In recent years, there have certainly been an important evolution of institutions, policies and the general perception of gender and equality- related issues within the European Union. Nevertheless, these improvements, especially in the field of rural development, can remain primarily on a rhetorical level, if the current top-down, exogenous approach of core EU rural policies does not change significantly. Values and resources, represented by rural women, can only be efficiently harnessed in a policy environment, which is genuinely supportive for local initiatives, community action and an integrated approach to rural development. The situation of women in rural areas is more likely to be improved by the utilisation of their resources for the benefit of the whole rural community, than the force of legislation or supervisory committees on gender issues. Thus, the future or rural women (and the rest of the rural society) is strongly connected to the future of neo-endogenous, integrated rural development within the EU policy system. Though future prospects, especially concerning Eastern enlargement and the pre-accession policies do not show much improvements in this direction, internal and external forces are likely to bring about significant changes in the not too distant future. Efforts to achieve the equality of all disadvantaged social groups and to reinforce the status of rural women could well connect with attempts to enhance local development and a neo-endogenous approach within the rural policy system of the EU. At the same time, the coming eastern enlargement could provide a good framework and an excellent field for such an evolution.

 
Literature

Benneth, K (2001) Voicing Power: Women, family Farming and Patriarchal Webs Working Paper 62, CRE, University of Newcastle
Braithwaite, K. (2001) The influence of Three Different European Welfare States upon the Development of Rural Women’s Groups Working Paper 61, CRE, University of Newcastle
Commission of the European Communities (1988) The Future of Rural Society; CEC, Brussels
Commission of the European Communities (1998/a) Labour situation and strategies of farm women in diversified rural areas of Europe Research project funded by the AIR-programme of the European Commission (CT94-2414)Final Report - December 1998
http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/publi/capstud/women/index_en.htm
Commission of the European Communities (2000/a) Women, active in rural development
http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/publi/capstud/women/index_en.htm
Commission of the European Union (1997) Agenda 2000 For a stronger and wider Union; CEC, Brussels
European Council (1999) Council Regulation (EC) N°1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, O.J.,26/6/99, L161/1.
Hall, P. A. (1993) Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State - The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain In: Comparative Politics 1993 April pp. 275-296
Kola, J. (1999) Agricultural Policy and Rural Development in Finland and in Europe In: New Rural Policy - Finnish Journal of Rural Research and Policy, English Supplement 1999
Lowe, P and Brouwer, F (2000) Agenda 2000: A Wasted Opportunity? (Manuscript)
Nemes, G.. (2001) The Nature of Rural Development - The Hungarian National Report Online publication (www.panda.org/resources/programmes/epo/initiatives/agridev.cfm) and published in Hungarian: Közgazdaságtudományi Kutatóközpont- Working Papers
Nemes, G. (1999) Rural Development Policies for an Enlarged Europe: The Challenges for Hungary Centre for the Rural Economy, Research Report, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Ray, C. (2001) Culture Economies – A perspective on local rural development in Europe
 CRE Press, University of Newcastle upon Tyne