‘Cötkény’ - a Journey to the Future – 
integrating nature, society and local economics for rural development


Case Study by
Gusztáv Nemes

Headline message

This local development project shows, how some CEE rural areas could develop alternative models of rural development, turning into practice EU rhetoric on sustainability, integration and local participation. The leaders of this project took EU rhetoric seriously and treat the Cork Declaration and the vision of CARP almost like current reality. They hope to benefit from ‘backward, low input agricultural production’, make a ‘short-cut’ and try to achieve ‘post-modern’ rurality, without the distractive modernisation process of the CAP. This project could illustrate integration, environmental sustainability, bottom-up aspects based on strong partnership between various actors and interests. However, it could also show how local development can depend on external factors and how opportunities can be missed due to lacking resources and the lack of clear strategies on higher political levels.
The local development strategy of Cötkény primarily builds on the ecological resources of the area, combining them with socio-cultural aspects, traditions and local economic development. The first pillar of the strategy builds on proposed EU programmes for the maintenance of natural habitats and cultural landscapes (countryside stewardship schemes, ESA, agri-environmental programmes, etc.); the second builds on sustainable tourism (eco-tourism, bird-watching, fishing, health-tourism, agro-tourism). Low-input, environmental friendly farming, could complement income from agri-environmental schemes, producing high-value, territorial products. The last leg of the local economy could be area-specific arts and crafts. According to their strategy, local economic development has to be complemented with ‘soft projects’, capacity building, strengthening of social networks, enabling synergic effects and providing equal opportunities for local actors. The main aim is to keep local resources and local people in the area; to sell products (landscape, food, maintenance of the nature) on the global market, but keeping most benefit and profit for the indigenous population.
The strategy was developed through a bottom-up process, by a partnership of Conservation Authorities, local authorities, businesses and NGOs. It created high expectations amongst the local population. The project leaders built international connections and tried to access multiple funding sources, however, the lack of substantial EU and domestic funding (delay of SAPARD and the Hungarian Agri-environmental Programme, lack of ESA and LFA support, etc.) resulted in the current failure of the programme and the disillusionment of a significant part of the locals.
However, significant resources are expected to arrive to the area in the near future, since it is designated as a target region for three different programmes:
· The Hungarian Agri-environmental Programme;
· The agri-environmental pilot measure of the SAPARD Programme (see map 1.);
· The so-called ‘Vásárhelyi Plan’, which is a large project to improve flood-control in the Tisza region .
These three programmes are likely to bring some 7-8 billion Forints (EUR 32 million) for the development of the region. This is a very significant amount for this region, which could make a basis for a long term development of the nature, economy and society of the area if spent on a sustainable way. However, it can also cause sever damage if spent on the wrong way, without considering natural values and local interests.
Secondary information
The Cötkény Programme was developed in a micro-regional association (Cötkény Alliance for Local Development), on the North-east of Hungary, in the area of ‘Borsodi Mezőség’. It covers 1 town, 5 villages, 12.000 people, and some 350 km2 land area.
Over 50% of the natural geographical area is an especially valuable nature reserve (protected by environmental legislation), which is a defining factor and has nearly the same effect on each village of the Alliance. Some of this area is part of two large national parks (Hortobágyi, Bükki), the rest is mainly composed of ESA areas (both potential and designated). Agriculture has been mainly low input for the last 15 years. In the past, animal husbandry (cattle grazing) and a wide range of agricultural products was more typical, which was more suited to the natural environment. However, as a result of decisions, made on high political level (co-operativisation and flood-protection) the structure of agricultural production was changed completely. Today, arable production is the most widespread; monocultures, reduced diversity and outdated technologies (old, socialist-type machinery and technology) are characteristic. Natural habitats and cultural landscapes are threatened by land abandonment and water pollution.
The Tisza River and the Tisza Lake (a large reservoir on the former floodplain of the river) provide excellent possibilities for sustainable- and mass tourism . Between the 60’s and the late 80’s the region lost half of its population, as a result of the out-migration of mainly young, educated families. The general economic crisis of the 90’s stopped this trend and the population have even increased, though, most immigrants are gipsies or members of other disadvantaged groups. Local people kept many traditions, social networks and cultural heritage still form important parts of local life. Physical infrastructure (roads, sewage system, etc.) is poor, though a motorway is expected to be built through the area in the near future.
The Cötkény Alliance was established in 1995, as one of the first micro-regional associations in the country. Over the years, they have worked out a complex development strategy and a range of development programmes for the area. During this, the most progressive elements of current and proposed EU programmes and rural development rhetoric were used, well overstriding currently available or promised resources. As it was said by the programme leader: “…We have a vision about the future. We did not want to limit ourselves to the SAPARD, but wanted to start from local resources and priorities.” The main innovation of their strategy (at least under the Hungarian circumstances) is building first of all on natural, ecological resources. They work in strong co-operation with the Bükki Nemzeti Park (Bükk National Park – BNP) .
Their ‘Programme for Rural Development’ is basically the scenario of the mutually interdependent, natural, environmental, economic and social rehabilitation process, the primary objective of which is to regain control and influence over the micro-region for the people themselves. The programme based on local initiative traces and defines the local opportunities for integrated development in line with the requirements of sustainable development.
The three main aims are:
· to use and protect their area according to its high nature value;
· to ensure that local activities can support appropriate living standards, and the area does not lose its population;
· to ensure that the profit, arising from the developments will mainly benefit the indigenous population.
The major parts of the programme are as follows:
· The solution for the regulation of the surface water balance in order to ensure the currently required provision of water.
· The re-cultivation and rehabilitation of the landscape in keeping with the ancient flood-plain of the Tisza.
· The formation of an agricultural product structure best suited for the rehabilitated land that will multiply its biomass.
· The formation of agricultural structure based primarily on local private ownership, which will provide the basis for regional cooperation.
· Development of diverse economic activities making multiple use of the advantages of the landscape to an optimum level (processing industry, tourism, handicrafts, etc).
According to the project leader, the area would need a large ’capital injection’ to start with. This would able to acquire appropriate physical and human resources for the local population. After this ‘first aid’, normal EU-type funding for environmental friendly production (ESA, LFA, agri-environmental programmes), together with locally generated profit (from agricultural production, tourism, crafts, niche products, etc.) would be enough to maintain and improve local society, nature and economy. This means that, after initial help they would not need any assistance, but agri-environmental type. This, according to EU rhetoric, is not really an aid, but a necessary and fair contribution of the global economy for the maintenance of the countryside and the provision of public goods. This means that, the area, building on this new economic structure, could become viable and ‘competitive’ again in itself as it used to be in the past.
The leaders of Cötkény tried to learn from international experiences and searched for multiple funding. For example, they participated in the ‘Avalon Project’ (co-ordinated by IEEP); made connections with German, Dutch, Swiss, Swedish foundations and international organisations, such as WWF or ECOVAST . They also had significant domestic support from various universities, research institutes, environmental NGOs and other civil organisations. Their lobbying strategy included approaching Hungarian MPs, political parties and interest groups. They managed to get some funding from domestic and international sources , nevertheless, this was only enough to support some ‘showcase projects’ and not the whole programme. The money is always insufficient amount, it comes at the wrong time for the wrong or the second best thing . Though for economic development there are some available programmes, it is impossible to find resources for ‘soft projects’. “Subsidising individual projects is not enough to reach synergic effects or to convince the local people about that it is worth to try dong something for their own future. We think that our duty is to develop a programme and turn it into practise, the government’s and the EU’s duty is to provide appropriate resources. Our strategy and programme was evaluated as very good and realistic by domestic and international judges as well. Why do we have to compete for development resources then? We think they should rather be provided automatically for all local associations, having a good, realistic programme…”
Cötkény also developed a strategy to build partnership and convince local people about the importance of co-operation. They tried to develop their strategy through a bottom-up process, involving as many actors as possible. Also, after the programme was ready, they delivered it to everybody’s home (more than 5000 copies), accepted comments from anyone and organised a public debate about it. The whole process generated a lot of enthusiasm amongst local people and businesses. Not everybody was supportive, there was significant opposition. Questions about social exclusion (mainly of the gipsy population) and the legitimacy of the local development group were also raised, but most would agree on that, the whole local society started to move and think about the future. Although, significant funding has been delayed, many applications and plans failed. People are losing enthusiasm, many have become disillusioned. According to the programme leaders, this can have bad consequences for future developments. Nevertheless, when we asked about current results and consequences of what has happened so far, they told: “We have not built so many things, but at least we know which way to go. We also learned from SAPARD how to write money-applications to the European Union, which we will need in the near future, hopefully. On the other hand, this whole programming and common thinking, although, generated a lot of arguments, helped to reinforce, or even rebuild in some cases old social networks, trust and mutual relations within the local community. These are certainly positive results….”
They see several dangers threatening these plans. One is that, if the promises for agri-environmental and structural support remain unfulfilled for the long run. In this case, local society, lacking appropriate capital, will not be able to utilise local resources and possibilities. Social and environmental degradation will increase and finally outside investors will squeeze out local population from the possible benefits of development. This is a real danger, since substantial local resources (land, buildings, etc.) have already been taken by Hungarian and foreign investors. These resources are likely to be lost for a long time for the local economy . The other danger is that, if the external support arrives too late, then the initial social momentum, gained through the programming procedure will be lost, social networks and co-operation will brake down. At the same time, the proposed external resources can attract investors from outside, resulting in similar results, described above .
Nevertheless, the greatest danger, threatening their aims and the very existence of the area’s local resources is coming from a proposed central flood-control programme the ‘Vásárhelyi Plan’ (VP). Though, at the same time, could also be the greatest benefit for the area. Two different philosophies of flood?control meet here. The first is (this is the approach of the current VP) is an ‘industrial’ one. The main aim is to protect the largest possible area, providing safe land for intensive agricultural production. In order to this, 10 high capacity reservoir would be created (see map 2.), which would require a large amount of earthwork, seriously damaging for the local environment. The other danger derives from the expected water-level in the reservoir. If the water raises too high from time to time, which would be the case according to this approach, it could destroy most of the natural environment completely. The realisation of this plan for the Cötkény Alliance would mean the loss of its main local resource, the rich and diverse environment, which would deprive them from most of their development possibilities, described above. It would also result in the loss of a range of natural values, already protected by domestic and international agreements (RAMSAR Convention, for example).
The other approach to flood-control has a more ‘environmental’ focus. This would mean the creation of many small capacity reservoirs, requiring much less earthwork altogether, and predicting a much lower water level at the time of floods. This, basically would mean giving back to the river some of its flood-plain, and turning back to a more traditional agriculture (‘foki cultivation’) on these territories. This would greatly benefit the environment, extending wetland areas  and creating buffer zones for currently high nature value areas. It would also mean the loss of significant areas of intensive agricultural land. However, much of this land is poor quality, and is likely to become abandoned in the near future, if it is not already. For Cötkény this solution would enhance their local development resources greatly and would bring significant external aid for development .
The decision between the two approaches will be made on higher, political level. Therefore, once again, the future of this region is going to be decided by external forces.
Summary
Cötkény aims classical endogenous and sustainable, programme based rural development. It builds on local resources, local participation and sinergic effects and tries to keep the benefit of development for the indigenous population. Their main innovation is exploiting the natural, ecological environment on various ways, as a major resource for local development. The programme raises questions about legitimacy and equal opportunities, however, the largest obstacle in the way of its realization is the lack of financial resources and external forces, acting in the area. This is partly, because instead of ‘political- and policy- reality’, the local leaders built on the rhetoric and promises of the EU and domestic forces. They tried to apply the ideas of sustainability and integrated, endogenous development, and they are failing to succeed in that, because of political and economic reality. However, their experiment could show the outstanding possibilities for changing rural development and rural policies, currently available in Central and Eastern Europe.
 
APPENDIXES

1. Programme for the Development and Transformation of the Agricultural Structure in the Rural Areas of the Borsod Micro-region
2. The ‘Vásárhelyi Plan’ – in Hungarian (A Vásárhelyi Terv)
3. Nature Conservation Expert Opinion on the ‘Vásárhelyi Plan’ – in Hungarian (Természetvédelmi szakvélemény "A Vásárhelyi Terv Továbbfejlesztése"című anyagról)
4. Collision of Philosophies – in Hungarian (Filozófiák Ütközése)
5. Important activities of the Cötkény Alliance 1995-2001 – in Hungarian
MAPS

1. Agri-environmental pilot areas for the Hungarian SAPARD Programme (Agrárkörnyezetvédelmi mintaterületek a SAPARD Programban)
2. Planned Emergency-reservoirs on the Tisza River (Tervezett Tiszai Vésztározók)
3. Borsodi Mezőség Reservoir (Borsodi Mezőség Víztározó)