1. Goran Šoster PREPARE Coordinator Lužnica, 27. November, 2014

2.  Theoretical context of Rural Parliaments  Overview of the existing Rural Parliaments  Emerging Rural Parliaments  Common vision for the future

3.  Negative trends ◦ Economic crisis (polarisation, unemployment rates) ◦ Social crisis (depopulation of rural areas, growing poverty, marginalisation of rural population) ◦ Decrease of democracy (globalisation, political parties without roots, administrative barriers) ◦ Change of values (manipulations through mass media, consumption fever)

4.  Positive trends ◦ Common European RD policy (mainstreaming the LEADER, starting with CLLD 2014-2020, emergence of greening/ greenwashing ) ◦ Territorial approach to the regional Development competing with stubborn sectorial approach ◦ Call for the “Paradigm shift in rural development” by OECD in 2006, by the rural movements in the debate about future CAP ◦ The voice from the civil society is getting stronger (tradition of social partnership, networking)

5. -Supporting Rural Parliaments (RP) with co-financing (Estonian RP, Slovenian RP, Latvian RP) -Helping people to attend different RP (travel costs) -Information exchange (BOOKLET about RP, newsletter, website, conferences) -Motivate movements in several countries to join initiative of RP -Co-organizing European RP

6. -Synergies while joining the forces of similar movements -Looking for further allies (ELARD, EESC, EC, ?) -Stronger influence on policies to improve the living and working conditions in rural areas

7. -Hela Swerige Ska Leva began with initiative and developed it in the best possible way during many years since 1989 -Biannual 3-4 days event -More than 1.000 participants ( ≥0,5 MEUR ) -Presence of highest politicians and press -Combined exchange of knowledge and opinions, arguments, demands, presentations, workshops, field visits, meet each other -Award „Village of the year“ -Important for rural policy and for international inspiration -Outcomes: gather people to exchange, changing rural communities, influencing rural policy, social change through media, strengthening organization

8. -KODUKANT, village associations and LAGs -Biannual 3 days events since1996 -350-400 participants -Presentations, workshops, field visits, international part, exhibitions, celebration -Award the „The village of the year“ -Presence of President of Estonia -Each time accepting Declaration and afterwards evaluation of achievements -Outcomes and structure similar to Swedish RP

9. -Swedish Study Centre -Biannual event starting with similar activities to RP in 1990 -100 participants -Keanote speakers, debate, suggestions -Outcomes: activate Swedish speakig people, influencing decission makers

10. -Landelike Vereiniging Kleine Kernen -One day event, organized every year -No field trips -The main aim is to gather and exchange opinions, to raise the voice of 35% rural inhabitants

11. -Vidiecki Parlament – VIPA -One days event -Presentations, debate, exchange, influencing decission makers

12. -Slovenian Rural Development Network -The first SRP in 2011: 150 people, celebrating 20th aniversary of independence - Second 2012: 300 participants, debate about CAP 2020 -Both SRP co-financed by the National Rural Network (TA MA) -Open participation, no delegates -Outcomes: raising the rural voice, influencing policy -Preparation of the 3rd SRP in 2015

13. -Latvias Lauku Forum -Two days event since 2013 -Open participation, 200 participants, international delegation -Presentations of the regions, experts, workshops, field visits -Raising the voice of rural areas

14. -Lithuanian Rural Community Union -One day event since 2014 -150 participants, limiting the number of delegates -Strong political Declaration - Only Lithuanian participants, broad movement, low budget -No respond from the MA, short presence of few politicians

15.  Scottish Rural parliament (2014)  Croatia (April 2015)  Bosnia and Herzegovina (2015)  Catalonia (2015)  Romania  Germany  England  Others ?

16. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE RURAL PARLIAMENTS  RPs are building the important BRIDGE between civil society and governments  RPs contribute to the urgent “PARADIGM SHIFT”  RPs are manifestation of the PARTICIPATIVE DEMOCRACY  RPs are the place, where people MEET and EXCHANGE experience  RPs are the places where SMALL PEOPLE can raise their voice  RPs are giving priority to the people with the VISION

17. goran@preparenetwork.org www.preparenetwork.org