The mechanics of the discussion with the farmers I was a part of here in Denmark are like this. On the one side, you have an industrialized food production, that has some quite severe consequences for the health of the nature around it. We had this HUGE discussion about the leftover nutrients of the farming that end up in the fjords, making the fjord absolutely unlivable for the fish and marine life in general.

AT THE OTHER HAND the farmers argued the fact that WE NEED FOOD. In a world where food becomes scarcer, cutting down one of the most effective farming industries in the world, is probably not such a wise idea.

So the solution became 1. A fierce focus on technological development to reduce the use of nitrogen or fertilizer. Robots to focus the use for instance. 2. The development of new ways to grow protein like growing grasshoppers and so on. 3. Reduction of the least productive farming soil, turning this soil into production FORESTS instead.

What is REALLY important is the way it was done, it was done with a massive respect for the farmers, and with an ungoing dialogue with the NGOs of the field, and dialogue with the responsible foresters.

We had this problem that some other project called rewinding came in and ruined the proces, so that was partly a problem of bad planning. But this is how it is.

But I will not lie, it was one of the most difficult political negotiations I have ever worked on, so there is ample room for problems. As we see in Holland right now.

The only way to make it work, is to really LISTEN.

G-d bless the will to be as democratic as possible in some extremely difficult negotiations. G-d bless the will to truly have faith in DIALOGUE.

Categories: Politics Tags:
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.