Engaging in European spatial planning: a central and Eastern European perspective on the territorial cohesion debate

The following paper sets out to determine the differential extent of the engagement of Central and Eastern European (CEE) member states with the European spatial planning (ESP) debate over territorial cohesion. It focuses on the written statements submitted in response to the European Commission “Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion” consultation in 2009. The geographical distribution of the respondents is analysed, before CEE member states’ responses are examined in detail, to explore the diverse interpretations of the concept of “territorial cohesion” among CEE actors. While the data collection for this paper has been restricted empirically to the consultation process, it reflects its findings in consideration of member states’ engagement with the debate as it manifested before and after the Green Paper. The debate over the exact conceptual and operational “framing” of territorial cohesion, launched by the European Commission's Green Paper, constitutes one of the many arenas through which ESP currently evolves, together with the transnational initiatives developed in the framework of the European Territorial Cooperation objective, the European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion (ESPON) and the process that recently led to the publication of the Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020. The paper concludes that the overall level of engagement of CEE actors in ESP is proportionally lower in comparison with that of their northwestern European counterparts. The increasing involvement of some CEE member states within the ESPON 2013 Programme, as well as the activities undertaken by the Hungarian and Polish EU Presidencies in 2011, suggests that this level of CEE engagement is growing albeit differentially.

Can genetically-modified cotton contribute to sustainable development in Africa?

Genetically modified (GM) crops and sustainable development remain the foci of much media attention, especially given current concerns about a global food crisis. However, whilst the latter is embraced with enthusiasm by almost all groups, GM crops generate very mixed views. Some countries have welcomed GM, but others, notably those in Europe, adopt a cautious stance. This article aims to review the contribution that GM crops can make to agricultural sustainability in the developing world. Following brief reviews of both issues and their linkages, notably the pros and cons of GM cotton as a contributory factor in sustainability, a number of case studies from resourcepoor cotton farmers in Makhathini Flats, South Africa, is presented for a six-year period. Data on expenditure, productivity and income indicate that Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton is advantageous because it reduces costs, for example, of pesticides, and increases income, and the indications are that those benefits continued over at least the six years covered by the studies. There are repercussions of the additional income in the households; debts are reduced and money is invested in children's education and in the farms. However, in the general GM debate, the results show that GM crops are not miracle products which alleviate poverty at a stroke, but nor is there evidence that they will cause the scale of environmental damage associated with indiscriminate pesticide use. Indeed, for some GM antagonists, perhaps even the majority, such debates are irrelevant – the transfer of genes between species is unnatural and unethical. For them, GM crops will never be acceptable despite the evidence and pressure to increase world food production.

Analysing institutional partnerships in development: a contract between equals or a loaded process?

Partnerships are complex, diverse and subtle relationships, the nature of which changes with time, but they are vital for the functioning of the development chain. This paper reviews the meaning of partnership between development institutions as well as some of the main approaches taken to analyse the relationships. The latter typically revolve around analyses based on power, discourse, interdependence and functionality. The paper makes the case for taking a multianalytical approach to understanding partnership but points out three problem areas: identifying acceptable/unacceptable trade-offs between characteristics of partnership, the analysis of multicomponent partnerships (where one partner has a number of other partners) and the analysis of long-term partnership. The latter is especially problematic for long-term partnerships between donors and field agencies that share an underlying commitment based on religious beliefs. These problems with current methods of analysing partnership are highlighted by focusing upon the Catholic Church-based development chain, linking donors in the North (Europe) and their field partners in the South (Abuja Ecclesiastical Province, Nigeria). It explores a narrated history of a relationship with a single donor spanning 35 years from the perspective of one partner (the field agency).