Developments in the Doha Round and WTO dispute settlement: some implications for EU agricultural policy

Progress in the Doha Round is assessed against the changes to the common agricultural policy (CAP) brought about by the Fischler reforms of 2003-2004, and that proposed for sugar. An elimination of export subsidies could place EU exports of processed foods at a competitive disadvantage because of high sugar and milk prices. Provided the single payment scheme falls within the green box, the likely new limits on domestic support should not be problematic for the post-Fischler CAP. However, an ambitious market access package could open up EU markets and bring pressure for further reform. If there is no Doha agreement, existing provisions will continue to apply, but without the protection of the Peace Clause; and increased litigation is likely. Further CAP reform is to be expected.

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.

The engagement of territorial knowledge communities with European spatial planning and the territorial cohesion debate: a Baltic perspective

Recent, dramatic spatial development trends have contributed to the consolidation of a unique territorial governance landscape in the Baltic States. The paper examines the transformation of this evolving institutional landscape for planning practice and knowledge, which has been marked by the disintegration of Soviet institutions and networks, the transition to a market-based economy and the process of accession to the EU. It explores the evolution of territorial knowledge channels in the Baltic States, and the extent and nature of the engagement of actors' communities with the main knowledge arenas and resources of European spatial planning (ESP). The paper concludes that recent shifts in the evolution of these channels suggest the engagement of ESP has concentrated among epistemic communities at State and trans-national levels of territorial governance. The limited policy coordination across a broader spectrum of diverse actors is compounded by institutionally weak and fragmented professional communities of practice, fragmented government structures and marginalized advocacy coalitions.

Best practice in the training, appointment and remuneration of members of dispute boards for large infrastructure projects

This paper reports part of a qualitative study into evolving practice in the implementation of the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) construction dispute resolution technique, a variant of the Dispute Review Board (DRB) concept used in the US and Canada. Data was collected through a focus group interview of 20 highly experienced dispute resolution practitioners from engineering and the law. The group was assembled from members of FIDIC-NET with direct experience of project DABs. The part reported here concerns practice and procedure for establishing DABs. The main findings are that: constitution of the DABs is often delayed because of either project owners' ignorance of the DAB process or deterrence by the cost of the DABs; such owners also tend to insist on appointing DAB members from local engineers and lawyers without sufficient understanding of the DAB process; rates of remuneration of DAB members vary widely; the training provision for DAB membership and advocacy skills is inadequate; the process of selecting candidates for DAB membership and negotiating the tripartite agreement between each member and the contractual parties needs to be navigated with great care to avoid raising ethical problems. The research contribution is threefold. First, it highlights the importance of realistic fees for DAB members within a standard framework in achieving timely establishment of a board that works well as a team. Second, it illustrates the use of qualitative focus group interview to study the impact of new contract terms from multiple stakeholder perspectives. Finally, it identifies areas where further research is needed.