Community Theater as Development; The culturally transcendent Commedia dell’arte

Community Theater as Development;

The culturally transcendent Commedia dell’arte

Erin T. Altman                                                                                                 05 June 2012

 Image

 

            Division of the bourgeoisie and the creation of the middle class plagued the social structures of industrialized Europe. Unification of the masses (das Volk) created a socio-political gap from the bourgeoisie, which was reflected in reactionary movements like worker uprisings, counter-cultural artistic expression and a fluid ideology of equitable development. Establishment of das Volk is important, because it actualizes the subordination of non-bourgeoisie Europe to capitalist development and widening cultural norms. Communities were able to participate in a greater unification of das Volk, leaving also a gap between communities and das Volk, as well as between das Volk and the bourgeoisie. Both gaps are important, as they represent development of the European community towards modernity, and are exemplified though reflective and reactionary pieces of culturally relevant art and science.

 

Gaps of community development between progressions in modernity have a common element, das Volk. Analysis of das Volk is essential, as it is the grounding force for sociological perceptions and thusly, change. As described by Martin Heidegger, Das Volk represents a unity of men under a common background and ideology.[1] In community development, das Volk plays a paradoxical role, illuminated by Bertolt Brecht in his “Short Organum for the Theater” (1948), acknowledging the ‘entanglement’ of mutual human relations under the auspice of intellectual and technological innovation. Perpetuation of innovation through development also perpetuates the community towards larger-scale unification. This unification can be conceptualized as das Volk, and is self-perpetuating through community reflection, perception and innovation.[2] Brecht situates the necessity of reflection towards development, through paralleling Heidegger’s ideology of community as commonality, and the establishment of commonality through theatrical performance.

 

“The theatre can let spectators enjoy the particular ethic of their age, which springs from productivity… the critical approach –i.e. our great productive method-… often proves to have powers of understanding, if society knows how to master it, we make it our own.(25, et al)

Societal relevancy of theater is said, by Brecht, to exemplify the productive method of community development. Through the consideration and analysis of the history of Commedia dell’arte, the uniquely paradoxical relationship of das Volk to community development is shown as progressive and destructive. Commedia dell’arte represents a humankind-long history of street theater performance[3], and is purposed because of its transcendence through multiple cultures, and existence in modern society. Street theater performance of the Commedia dell’arte is significant for the development of das Volk, because of its reflection of the small communities, and on an even smaller scale, the interaction with its particular audience. The Italian futurist theorist, Filipino Marinetti, in his 1915 work, “The Futurist Synthetic Theater”, best explains such technique of Commedia dell’arte. Illiciting the syncratic nature of improvisational theater with the community, Marinetti calls for the interaction “through unbroken contact.” Such interaction and response to the audience, is a reflection of the community in its current and fluid state, leading to Brecht’s ‘great productive model’ through the critical approach of self.[4]

 

Commedia dell’arte creates a uniquely critical situation through audience (community) interaction, due to the relatable nature of street theater actors. Commedia dell’arte actors were divided in to common characters that would be found in any community setting[5]. Purpose of commonality in community development is discussed by Heidegger as a fundamental part of an individual’s being-in-the-world, because of the constant existence among others. Commonality underpins the existence of das Volk, and therefore, the exposure to commonality creates community, and the potential for community development. Commedia dell’arte techniques of interaction and relatable experience for the audience are both elements of Marinetti’s syncratic futurism. Marinetti essentializes community-street theater interaction and commonality through the communal sensory experience. Importance of a community’s communal sensory experience of commonalities is futurist, in that it inspires progressive reflection.

 

Sensory experience of the community is paradoxically destructive, in that it overwhelms the community with anti-realist enlightenment. Renowned anti-social realism theorist, Vsevolod Meyerhold, depicted Commdia dell’arte in his analysis of street theater in, “The Fairground Booth” (1915).  Critiquing the “true theater” of Greek dialogue and performance, Meyerhold speculates that the fundamental element of theater is cabotinage; The dramatic movement of actors affected the sensory perception of the audience, without plot discimination discrimination by language. This form of theatrical pantomime uses the syncratic Commedia dell’arte style, by being universally relatable. Sensory reaction to the syncratic reflection of Commedia dell’arte deconstructs the audience perception of realism, leading towards progression of new ideology, to fill the gap of misunderstanding.

 

Commedia dell’arte’s paradoxical relationship with progression and destruction gave rise to community development, which followed the same pattern. Brecht explains this phenomenon of community development in to das Volk through the linear progression of community reflection as art, towards the intellectualization of society, and the intellectualization of society towards the reactionary progression of technology. Technology fathered the unification of relative communities, in to a common economic market[6]. This shift from traditional class system communities, to a distinction of the more wealthy bourgeoisie, was  based on production by a subordinated working class (das Volk). Destruction of community, towards the separation of the bourgeoisie and das Volk represents the paradoxical break from community progression. The gap between relative communities and the establishment of das Volk is emphasized in the community development, based on societal reflection and reaction, which is represented by Commedia dell’arte.

 

Greater unification of communities created a wider spectrum for community reflection, inspiring furthered communication and establishment of new commonalities. In this era of newly developed technology, and thusly the subordination of the once-self reliant communities as working class[7] (das Volk), community reflection and commonality centered on the concept of being das Volk. Self-separation from the bourgeoisie was readily apparent in the Brechtian community reflective and reactionary movement of das Volk in theater. Commedia dell’arte transcended the gap from community to das Volk, and took on the characteristics of new technical and political dimensions for a broadened community.

 

Theatrical production by das Volk became ultimately reflective of the community differences with the bourgeoisie. Rebellious movements in theater, against the new use of technology as representation of theater in cinematic form, sought to reflect on that difference, and represented the community theater of Commedia dell’arte in the gap between das Volk and the bourgeoisie.[8] Technology, including the popularity of cinema in the newly industrialized society, was brought to issue by Georg Lukács in his article, “Thoughts on Aesthetics of Cinema” (1913)[9]. Lukács detaches the aesthetic of theater, as reflective and syncratic, from the poetry of cinema. Lukács echoes the involvement of Commedia dell’arte with the audience, in the creation of a commonality through experience, through calling it a “fidelity to nature”(15et al). Citing the unnatural commitment of cinema to mass-entertainment positions popularized experiences as separate from the Commedia dell’arte community experience,

“And when the popular literature of the stages has finally been slain—then the stage will again be forced to cultivate that which is its actual calling: grand tragedy and grand comedy.(16 et al)

 

The search by das Volk for a reduction back to community-level theater was in reaction to the popularization of technology and art. Popularity of cinema was resisted by a multiplicity of theater theorists, framing the rebellion against the bourgeoisie, and the unification of overarching social power- the proletariat. As a further step backwards, towards the structure of Commedia dell’arte, Hugo von Hoffmansthal authored “The Substitute for Dreams” (1921)[10], in which he analyzed the negation of language in both theater and cinema.

 

Accepting the cultural shift towards cinema, Commedia dell’arte made another transcendence in to the realm of technology, through the negation of language in cinema as a syncratic method. Silent film encouraged the involvement of the audience, not through sensual means, but as an internal speculation. Hoffmannsthal states, “The language of the educated… ruffles the surface, but it does not awaken what slumbers in the depths. It is… but an abbreviation to reality.”(54 et al)

 

A paradoxical breaking away from the reality of das Volk was now towards a progressive destruction of cinematic art as that of the community-level theater. It is here that community-focused factors that compromise Commedia dell’arte can be seen as transcendant over the industrial and social transitions of das Volk. Coming full-circle from the upswing of community development towards the creation of das Volk, Commedia dell’arte’s syncratic, community-based and dramatic underpinning situated it as a universal and transcendent element of artistic and technical innovation. Commedia dell’arte concepts were reflected on throughout the progressive destruction of das Volk towards the anti-realist desire for regression away from the proletariat.

 

Rebellion against the monetary and technical power of the bourgeoisie, as well as the rebellion against the popular movements of the proletariat, make the community development, framed by Commedia dell’arte, in direct contrast to the Wagnarian idea of the total work of art (Gesamtkunstwerk). The Gesamtkunstwerk, as a totalizing fabrication of the idea of art[11], is represented in contrast to Wagnarian ideas of community development.[12] Brechtian ideology of totality was formed around the separation of ideas of development, whereas the Wagnarian totality of Gesamtkunstwerk was positioned as an organic, continuous unification of das Volk.[13] Commedia dell’arte aligns with the Brechtian recognition of system separation, and rebellion, because of the transcendence through das Volk, instead of along with it.

 

Commedia dell’arte’s essential ideology of syncratic, involved and dramatic reflection and reaction to society is a visible concept in modern day community-based entertainment as well. Ideology behind travelling music festivals has mirrored the street performance of Commedia dell’arte, in that it is participatory with the audience, and develops community around the Heideggerian communal experience. Similar rebellions against popular culture and wealth are also represented by modern day music festivals, in that they are counter-cultural movements against the popularized form of music hall, concert entertainment. Principles of Commedia dell’arte  transcend any sociological dimension, due to the Brechtian consideration of change and rebellion in art and technology.

 


[1]Heidegger, Martin. Sein Und Zeit. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1967. Print.

[2] Brecht B, Short Organum for the Theatre (1948)

[3] Clayton, J. Douglas. Pierrot in Petrograd: The Commedia Dell’arte/Balagan in Twentieth-century Russian Theatre and Drama. Montréal: McGill-Queen’s UP, 1993. Print.

[4] Clayton, J. Douglas. Pierrot in Petrograd: The Commedia Dell’arte/Balagan in Twentieth-century Russian Theatre and Drama. Montréal: McGill-Queen’s UP, 1993. Print.

[5] Clayton, J. Douglas. Pierrot in Petrograd: The Commedia Dell’arte/Balagan in Twentieth-century Russian Theatre and Drama. Montréal: McGill-Queen’s UP, 1993. Print.

 

[6] Farr, James R. Artisans in Europe: 1300-1914. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 2000. Print.

[7] Schumpeter, Joseph Alois. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper, 1950. Print.

 

[8] Fischer-Lichte E, Re-inventing a people’s theatre Max Reinhardt’s Theatre of the Five Thousand (Theatre, Sacrifice, Ritual 2005)

[9] Lukacs G, Thoughts on an Aesthetics of the Cinema (1913)

[10] Hofmannsthal Hv, The Substitute for Dreams (1921)

 

[11] Heidegger, Martin. Basic Writings: From Being and Time (1927) to The Task of Thinking (1964). New York: Harper & Row, 1977. Print.

[12] Wilson Smith M, Total montag Brechts reply to Wagner (Total Work of Art From Bayreuth to Cyberspace 2007)

[13] Wagner R, The Art-work of the Future (1849)

 

The European Union’s marginalization of Ukraine; Introduction of biofuels as unsustainable community development.

Biofuels and Economic Stabilization

The European Union’s marginalization of Ukraine;

Introduction of biofuels as unsustainable community development.

Erin T. Altman                                                                                                            12 June 2012

 

Image 

             Early European communities faced daunting fears of wide-spread famine, which established increasing awareness about food and energy security. With a history grounded in wars of resource and land allocation, the European community’s need for resource-sharing and cooperation lead to the development of the European Union (EU). Formed as a post-war sustainable development mechanism, the EU distinguished itself as a functioning supranational community. The Maastricht Treaty conditioned the European Community’s[i] commitment to securing resources, as the foundation for peace, human rights, and economic development. Development of the EU as a community with institutionally syncratic leadership, common norms set and monitored by the community, and an assisted self-help financial mechanism, positions it as an ideal model for community-based development. In this research, I will analyze the EU’s process of community development (enlargement) and answer the question of supranational community sustainability. EU initiatives are based on environmental, equitable and economic standards for sustainability; But, how far can one institution enlarge before an inevitable collapse?

Demand on agricultural and energy resources grows exponentially larger due to the synchronized effect of population growth, resource consumption and development potential, creating an alarming state of resource supply shortage. In this research, I will exemplify the EU’s opportunities and risks in sustaining agricultural and energy resources, through:

1. Essentializing the EU as a sustainable community,

2. Analyzing data to frame the potential of the EU’s initiatives, and

3. Presenting the case for destruction of European Community ethic;

Seeking to present a case for sustainability of agricultural and energy resources, I will analyze the production of biofuels towards community development. In this analysis, I will deconstruct the quantitative data of economic and environmental impact of biofuel production for the EU, and the actors involved. Using comparable qualitative data (interview) from biofuel production and consumption communities, I will present the paradigm of European community development. Specifically looking at the case of Odessa, Ukraine, the supranationality of the EU positions itself as a risk to international community development.


(Photo c/o http://www.salix.od.ua/More%20Maps.htm)

The EU’s interest in Odessa began with Ukraine’s longstanding cultural history of oppression by foreign powers. Unlike the European community, which formed horizontally by making treaties between adversaries, Ukraine’s vertical oppression by external powers necessitated the struggle for independence. Depicted by 1934 film The Battleship Potemkin, the Odessa Massacre exemplifies the marginalization of Ukrainian autonomy. This film grew in popularity as Communist propaganda for the Soviet Regime, which promised Ukrainian workers rights in the Bolshevik Revolution. Post-Soviet Ukraine, especially in the port town of Odessa, is now considered politically instable and underdeveloped by the EU.[1]

            European community development’s horizontal approach was accessible because of the development of communication between markets and eventually, a common economic market.[2] Unlike Ukraine, Europe’s agriculture-based economy developed under the auspice of sovereign powers, who had established territories. (AUTHOR #4) Pre-supposed lack of internal political deterrents allowed European communities the opportunity to recognize the need for resources, identify the resource or land allocation that must be done, and cooperate with resource-holders to create a common market.[3] In contrast to Communism, the European Economic Community[ii] (EEC) provides diversity of competitive actors to sustain each other through participatory and empowering support scheme, known as assisted self-help.

European community development also succeeded due to the establishment of European Community ethics. The Maastricht Treaty was the first ratified by all member states, establishing agreed-upon standards for functionality, to ensure peace and prosperity among all actors. Recognition of desired sovereignty against former adversaries protects the most fundamental reason for community upheaval; war over agricultural and energy resources. Resource allocation is guaranteed by fair trade agreements within the EEC[iii]; But what about well-being of other countries? Is it the EEC’s responsibility to care for the resource access in non-member states?

Focusing on sustainability positions the EU as using human-scale development (HSD).[4]  HSD promotes a self-reflective and fluid institution, which achieves short-term community strengthening in the interest of long-term success. Monitoring and evaluation are fundamentalized in HSD, through the short term and long term development goals, which are displayed through this graph:

 

“Financing Renewable Energy in European Markets.” Ecofys. Web. 01 June 2012. <http://www.ecofys.com/en/project/financing-renewable-energy-in-european-markets/&gt;.

 This graph depicts the EU’s argument for progressive development of renewable energy as an economically sustainable endeavor. It is in this interest, that the EU signed the Kyoto Protocol, pledging to reduce environmental impact of CO2 emissions. The EU established the largest number of energy mandates, committing 20% renewable energy use by 2020, and 50% by 2040[5]. Mandates following the Kyoto Protocol were in accordance with the revision on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), whereby Europe’s agricultural and energy resource supply shortages are addressed through environmental, economic and equitable dimensions. The EU’s process of community-based development facilitates the agency of the EU towards sustainability. Does institutional agency of the EU negate agency of EU sub-communities?

Under the European Citizens Initiative, the average European community citizen can submit a petition directly to the European Commission[iv], who then refines and submits it as a piece of legislation. Participation by both the institution and the citizens is a perpetuation of community-based development for the European Community itself, and for the EEC policies. EEC policies affect quantitative factors, such as subsidy and social services, and are a constant source of debate within the European Community, on both institutional and social levels. Allocation of monetary resources heightens in importance, as the world economy puts further pressure on agricultural and energy resources over time.

Increasing pressure on agricultural and energy resources, has forced the European Community to respond, through a commitment to environmentally and economically sustainable policies and initiatives. Began under the auspice of the European Coal and Steel Community, the EU has been faced with a challenge to secure necessary energy imports. The Green Paper, “Towards a European Strategy for Energy Supply” (2000) actualizes transport emissions as the greatest waste of energy and monetary resources, and with the largest environmental degradation, as shown in the graph below.

 

(Commission Communication of 8 February 2006 entitled “An EU Strategy for Biofuels” [COM(2006) 34 final – Official Journal C 67 of 18 March 2006])

 

Acting in the interest of most efficient use of agricultural resources, the smallest environmental impact, and the most cost-effective option for the European Community, the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive (RED)[6] (2009) positioned biofuel and biodiesel as the future to European Community agricultural and energy dependence.

Biofuel production is a combination of agricultural and energy resource management[v], which is divided in two directives, focused on the: 1. Security of energy supply, and 2. Reduction of CO2 emissions:

  • Directive 2003/30/EC sets national indicative targets for the introduction of biofuels, setting a 5.75% correlative emissions reduction by 2010, and 20% by 2020.
  • Directive 2003/96/EC secures the competitiveness of biofuels through detaxation schemes, allowing for the free trade of biofuels between nations of the EEC.

            These two directives lay the ground for the concerns of the European community, about  directionality of biofuel production. The increased demand in the market for biofuels has led to an escalation in rural land to use for biofuel production. The impact of this process on Africa has been looked at in detail in a report published by EuropAfrica, “(Bio)Fuelling Injustice? Europe’s responsibility to counter climate change without provoking land grabbing and compounding food insecurity in Africa”[7]. I will supplement this research, through the previous investigation of how the EU biofuel policy was created, and now has the potential to create, an environment that fosters land grabbing and human rights abuses in Central and Eastern Europe, particularly Odessa, Ukraine.

            In “(Bio)Fuelling Injustice?”, it was shown how the EU biofuel policy can have devastating impacts on the local populations in developing countries. In particular, it was clearly demonstrated how the EU biofuel policy drives “land grabbing”[8], which refers to the phenomenon of concentration of land and associated natural resources, particularly water, due to domestic or foreign investments, with implications for human rights, food security and the environment. In addition, and as a consequence, the EU biofuel policy has negative effects on food security, governance and human rights, especially threatening the food security and the right to food of poor populations in Africa. This assessment led to the conclusion that the EU and its Member States are violating their obligation enshrined in EU law to ensure the coherence of their policies with the objectives of EU development cooperation and their obligation under international law to guarantee human rights beyond their borders.

            While the negative impact of the EU biofuel policy in Africa, Asia or in South America has been thoroughly analyzed, countries in Central and Eastern Europe are also particularly affected but there is little record of this effect. This report intends to start to fill this gap by shedding light on how the EU biofuel policy has precipitated or has the potential to fuel land grabbing and human rights violations in its own backyard. In addition, if economic development in Central and Eastern European countries is often better than in Africa, and the challenges faced by poor people in these countries are not necessarily the same, many of the effects of the biofuels policies have effects that are in many respects comparable. Therefore, the hope is also that, when relevant, lessons can be drawn from the study of the impact of biofuels in Eastern and Central Europe to fuel the reflection on the risks of the increase of biofuels production in Africa and elsewhere, and vice-versa.

Depicted through popularized Ukrainian media, images of economic and social oppression illuminate generations of foreign power and marginalization. Despite the constant territorial changes from Russian, Polish and Austo-Hungarian rule, the Ukrainian population held a common trait; Ukrainian culture was symbolized by the Yiddish farmer, in the 1894 publication of “Tevye the Dairyman” (Yiddish: טבֿיה דער מילכיקער), which is more commonly known as the basis for the film, “Fiddler on the Roof”. Serving as a qualitative analysis of marginalized Ukrainian community under Russian Tsarist rule, Tevye’s story is of Yiddish oppression, poor agricultural turnover due to the Tsar’s edicts, and necessity to abandon traditional agriculture, and join the Soviets in a revolution to secure Yiddish safety.

“Without our traditions, our lives would be as shaky as… as a fiddler on the roof!“[9]

            Agricultural production in the CIS decreased dramatically following the dismantling of the Soviet Union, leading to a drastic decline in domestic food production. Because agriculture was state-controlled by both the Tsarist and Soviet regimes, bilateral investment in agricultural development was needed in the CIS.[10] In Ukraine, for example, area sown to grains has declined by 30 million hectares (ha) since the fall of the Soviet Union.[11] As a result, many of these states became heavily dependent on Western imports for food.[12]

            Ukraine’s economic recovery began in the mid-1990s with the increase in foreign and domestic investment in agriculture.[13] Much cropland used during Soviet times had fallen into large-scale agricultural disuse, and were repopulated by peasant workers and small subsistence farming plots. Many of these areas have now been accounted for by the Ukrainian government, as government-owned lands.[14]

            Two elements make Ukraine especially attractive for biofuel production: Large amounts of usable land and low prices. The availability and therefore price of land is particularly low in Ukraine because of its political instability and moratorium on land sales. After gaining autonomy, the Ukrainian government issued only 40% of land to private owners and investors, with only 15% allocated towards farmers and community space[15].

            According to a report by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) quoted by two academic authors who wrote on the topic, only four countries in the world “have significant untapped capacity to make a major impact on meeting the growing global food demand”, three of which are countries in the CIS.10 Between 20 and 40 million ha of unused agricultural land is located in the CIS. Moreover, the price of this fertile land (“Black Earth”) is low because of situations like the Ukrainian moratorium. This moratorium is an indicator of a combination of lack of clear property rights law, a large supply of unused land and political instability. Prices spiked between 2006 and 2008 due to increased interest in this land but have since leveled out as a result of the financial crisis.[16] The region also has a developed infrastructure relative to African countries, where the majority of foreign investment is positioned toward agricultural development. However, if land rights are not well protected, the risk of large-scale land acquisition that can clash with the local population rises.[17]

According to the European Commission:

            “Supporting the development of renewable and alternative energy sources such as biomass, including biofuels, is therefore an important objective for cohesion policy.[18]

Cloaked as an economic development initiative, and substantiated by the required commitment by Ukraine for 30% available land use for biofuel production by the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) in March 2012, the EU has chosen Ukraine as the premiere location for biofuel production. Without land titles, how can the now-autonomous country of Ukraine ever provide its communities with agency for development? Is the EU’s vertical integration of cohesion policy and funding ignoring the human rights of agricultural-based communities?

In an interview with Priest Vladimir Janowicz, from the Ukrainian Mother of God Catholic Church in Eugene, Oregon, I discovered that most Ukrainian expatriates were expelled from their land by the controversial governance of the Ukrainian Ministry of Agriculture.

 

Father Janowicz preached about the historical destruction of Odessa, and how the oppression has only become more severe since the government began receiving funding to operate. Father Janowicz emphasized that the money created corruption, and that the European government did nothing but “sit back and judge” the Ukrainian people’s struggling economy.

            “Land grabbing” issues plaguing Ukrainian political stability are emphasized in the city of Odessa. Large tracts of land are being illegally sold to investors, despite the moratorium. The investors then rent the land at very high prices, to entrepreneurs and partners in business. When a tract of land is found to have been bought by an investor, the state forces the renter to leave. In Odessa, renters of this land include: Synagogue communities, private schools and entire housing developments. Odessa also experiences an increasing population, due to farmer migration away from their farmed but title-less land.

            According to former Ukrainian Foreign Minister of Affairs, Boris Tarasyuk, “it is no secret, that investors illegally buy land in the rural sector… and then force generations of farmers to pay rent at high rates.”[19] Farmers, unable to sell goods in a common market, and living at a minimal subsistence level, are unable to pay this rent and are evicted from the land. Evictions can happen by illegally-owned investor pressure, or by state forces to reclaim land titles.

            With the recent pressure of EU regulations on biofuel production, as a conditionality for structural and cohesion aid, Ukraine has tightened moratorium claims even further, through “reallocating,” over 10% of the biofuel-arable land back to the government since 2005.[20] The large amount of foreign direct investment, representing over 1000% what it did in 2005[vi], indicates the number of investors active in Ukraine. This large number of investors is being exposed at an alarming rate for “land grabbing”. With 851 land plots “reallocated” back to the Ukrainian government in 2011[21], the destruction of agriculture-based communities was visible through the shocking 43% increase in Odessa’s social service requests since only 2007[22]

            Odessa’s streets are filled with the rural poor laborers, who are no longer able to provide food or shelter for themselves, because of the increased pressure on the institution of moratoriums in Ukraine. Acting in self-interest, the European Union has not approved cohesion funding for the moratoriums to be bought from “illegal” farmers, but continually pressures Ukraine to find more space for biofuel production. Despite the community-based development of the EU, has the EU’s agricultural and energy resource sustainability become a mechanism for marginalization? Is the EU assisting in the Ukrainian government’s oppression of community development, by threatening rural farmers and also the economy of the largest city, Odessa?

            Ukrainian historical development is characterized by top-down oppression from foreign powers. EU control of agricultural aid has created a Ukrainian dependence on foreign aid to maintain the “reallocated”, unpopulated land space, and the conditionality of the EU aid denies the institutionally syncratic cohesion of Ukraine in to EU politics. Dependency occurs when the agency of Ukraine is undermined by conditionality from the EU[23], which creates an unsustainable pattern of economic development. The EU’s pillars of development, as equitable, economically and environmentally sustainable, are threatened by its lack of effort in institutionally syncratic leadership. Institutionally syncratic leadership is a fluid concept, which recognizes the multiplicity of actors in community development, and takes felt-needs in to account when making decisions[24]. The EU’s lack of effort towards institutionally syncratic development in EEC cohesion aid relationships, like that in Ukraine, represents the breakdown of fundamental EU pillars of development. Conditions in Odessa depict a society used and abused by foreign powers, and it is up to the EU to communicate with the communities of Ukraine, to break Ukraine’s cycle of oppression of the rural poor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANNEX:


[1] Commission Communication of 8 February 2006 entitled “An EU Strategy for Biofuels” [COM(2006) 34 final – Official Journal C 67 of 18 March 2006])

[2] Some sort of BS article about Ukrainian va European Development

[3] Ch. 15, The Link Between Local Participation and Improved Conservation: A Review of Issues and Experiences, Peter D. Little. In Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation. D. Western and R.M. Wright, eds. pp. 347-72

 

[4] Jackiewicz, Edward L. (2006). Community-Centered Globalization: Modernization under Control in Rural Costa Rica. Latin American Perspectives, vol. 33: pp. 136 – 146.

[5] Kalt, Gerald, and Rheinhard Haas. “BIOENERGY IN CENTRAL EUROPE – RECENT DEVELOPMENTS, INTERNATIONAL BIOFUEL TRADE AND FUTURE PROSPECTS.” Energy Economics and Development (2012). Energy Economics Group. Web. 06 June 2012.

[6] Directive 2009/28/Ec Of The European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC.

[7]S. Aubry, “(Bio)Fuelling Injustice? Europe’s responsibility to counter climate change without provoking land grabbing and compounding food insecurity in Africa” EuropAfrica (February 2012)

[8] Visser, O. and Spoor, M. 2011. “Land grabbing in post-Soviet Eurasia: the world’s largest agricultural land reserves at stake”, The Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 38 (2) is one the most developed studies on the issue, and it constitutes the basis of this report.

[9] “Fiddler on The Roof.” IMDb.com. Web. 06 June 2012. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067093/quotes&gt;.

[10] Visser, O. and Spoor, M. 2011. “Land grabbing in post-Soviet Eurasia: the world’s largest agricultural land reserves at stake”, The Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 38 (2), 299-323.

[11] Deininger, K. 2011. “Challenges posed by the new wave of farmland investment”, The Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 38 (2), 217-247.

[12] Visser, O. and Spoor, M. 2011. “Land grabbing in post-Soviet Eurasia: the world’s largest agricultural land reserves at stake”, The Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 38 (2), 299-323.

[13] Visser, O. and Spoor, M. 2011. “Land grabbing in post-Soviet Eurasia: the world’s largest agricultural land reserves at stake”, The Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 38 (2), 299-323.

[14] Visser, O. and Spoor, M. 2011. “Land grabbing in post-Soviet Eurasia: the world’s largest agricultural land reserves at stake”, The Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 38 (2), 299-323.

[15] Csáki, Csaba, and Zvi Lerman. Land Reform in Ukraine: The First Five Years. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1997. Print.

[16] Deininger, K. and Byerlee, D., with Lindsay,J., Norton, A., Selod, H. and Stickler, M. 2011. “Rising Global Interest in Farmland: Can it Yield Sustainable and Equitable Benefits?”, The World Bank.

[17] Deininger, K. and Byerlee, D., with Lindsay,J., Norton, A., Selod, H. and Stickler, M. 2011. “Rising Global Interest in Farmland: Can it Yield Sustainable and Equitable Benefits?”, The World Bank.

[18] European Commission, “An EU Strategy for Biofuels” COM(2006)34 final (8 February 2006), 11.

[19] Gazizullin, I. 2010. “Social impact of large scale agroinvestments in the FSU: Lessons from Ukraine’s experience”.

[20] Cochet, H. and Merlet, M. 2011. “Land grabbing and share of the value added in agricultural processes. A new look at the distribution of land revenues”, Paper presented at the International Conference on Global Land Grabbing, April 6-8 2011.

[21] Cochet, H. and Merlet, M. 2011. “Land grabbing and share of the value added in agricultural processes. A new look at the distribution of land revenues”, Paper presented at the International Conference on Global Land Grabbing, April 6-8 2011.

[22] Daniel, S. and Mittal, A. 2009. “The Great Land Grab: Rush for World’s Farmland Threatens Food Security for the Poor”, The Oakland Institute.

[23] Fry, Gerald W., and Galen R. Martin. The International Development Dictionary. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 1991. Print.

[24] Galvan, Dennis “The Social Reproduction of Community-based Development: Syncretism and Sustainability in a Senegalese Farmer’s Association,” Journal of Modern African Studies, 45:1, March 2007, 61-88.

 


[i] In this document, the EU and the European Community are used interchangeably, as they both represent the present-day 27 member states (EU-27). This does not include candidate or potential candidate countries or any countries outside of Europe.

[ii] The European Economic Community (EEC) is the fluid product of European Community development, which represents treaties for economic activity among all member states, partnerships, bilateral and multilateral aid. Initiatives of the EEC are fostered around economic stability and sustainability.

[iii] EUROSTAT (Comext, Statistical regime 4); World excluding Intra-EU trade and European Union: 27 members

[iv] The European Commission (EC) is the executive branch of the European Union, which proposes legislation, implements decisions and monitors the EU’s treaties and agreements. The European Commission is both the most powerful and most transparent institution within the European Community.

(European Commission Public Opinion Analysis: Survey Results 2012. 29 Mar. 2012. Raw data. European Union, Belgium, Bruxelles.

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/whatsnew_en.htm)

[v] Biofuel: Is the colloquial name for “fatty acid methal ester”, which is produced from vegetable oil, mainly rapeseed, sunflower and soybeans oil.

[vi] Year Foreign Direct Investment(Million USD)

1995            483.5

2000 3281.8

2005 9047.0

2006 16890.0

2007 21607.3

2008 29452.7

2009 35616.4

2010 40053.0

2011 44708.0

State            StatisticsService            ofUkraine. (http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2007/zd/zd_rik/zd_u/pi_07u.html.)