Search results

This chapter provides a case study of the use of online platforms for national consultations that target all citizens in Hungary. The Hungarian government, since 2010 led by the national-conservative populist party Fidesz, has carried out what is the most extensive series of consultations in contemporary Europe if measured by the share of citizens involved. The consultations are dominantly conducted by questionnaires that are printed and mailed by the postal service to all citizens, but recent consultations have also offered an online platform. Drawing on previous research on what happens when populist actors employ and institutionalize participatory methods, the chapter extends the inquiry to include the use of an electronic platform. Findings of this work shows that the online component has so far not led to new dynamics, and to the limited extent that it had any effect, it has largely been negative in terms of procedural guarantees. Due to the weakness of technology to prevent abuse, the online version of the consultation eroded rather than enhanced the credibility of the consultation process. The case study serves as a cautionary tale to those believing that e-participation practices 'by default' lead to superior normative and/or policy outcomes.

Farming practices that lead to declining returns and inputs of carbon to soils pose a threat to key soil functions. The EU FP 7 interdisciplinary project Smart SOIL is using scientific testing and modeling to identify management practices that can optimize soil carbon storage and crop productivity. A consultation with advisors and policymakers in six European case study regions seeks to identify barriers to, and incentives for, uptake of such practices. Results from preliminary interviews are reported. Overall advisor and farmer awareness of management practices specifically directed towards soil carbon. is low. Most production- related decisions are taken in the short term, but managing soil carbon needs a long- term approach. Key barriers to uptake of practices include: perceived scientifi c uncertainty about the effi cacy of practices; lack of real life ?best practice? examples to show farmers; diffi culty in demonstrating the positive effects of soil carbon management practices and economic benefi ts over a long time scale; and advisors being unable to provide suitable advice due to inadequate information or training. Most farmers are unconvinced of the economic benefi ts of practices for managing soil carbon. Incentives are therefore needed, either as subsidies or as evidence of the cost effectiveness of practices. All new measures and advice should be integrated into existing programmes to avoid a fragmented policy approach.