The Kolding Manifesto has born a proposal for Ecological Experimental Zones - read it here: Eco-Experimental Zones                                                       Danish version By Claus Heinberg Claus Heinberg, geologist, PhD (science), associate professor, Roskilde University Centre, Institute for Environment, Technology and Society. Co-editor of SALT Magazine (in Danish). Former board member of The Danish Association for Ecological Agriculture. Former deputy chairman of The Danish Ecological Council. "The EU environmental policy has been successful in the member states. However, the general environmental situation has not improved", according to a report issued by the EU environmental agency. The same message - that the environment has not got any better - is heard from the OECD, and the gist of GEO 2000, the UN environmental report is that for the whole thing to be of any avail, environmental policy needs to be integrated in general politics. Integrated! Environmentally, this country is on the cutting edge; however, at the same time there are targeted efforts e.g. for traffic to continue growing at a rate that will eat up any environmental gains, and a turn for the worse is targeted. But then, amidst our despair, a lot of bright little lights are being lit: Eco-farming, alternative energy sources, green families, sustainable construction, etc. Little lights, scattered all over the scene, lit by dullards, often struggling with authorities and experts. But if all these initiatives and technologies are to develop into something resembling an actual environmental policy, something that amounts to integrating the environment into politics - then they need to be brought into an interplay. So the next step is to create a framework that will make sustainability an option and a precondition for social development. A precondition in the sense that preferential treatment by society (such as deductible loans) will be relocated from industrial piggeries to the straw-bale tents, from tax on hands to tax on fuel, from deductible transportation to locality support. In order to do that, we need some areas where the rules of the game are totally different than the existing ones. Areas in which the overall conditions and priorities of society are shifted from money and competition towards sustainability and co-operation. A postscript. In previous debates the present subject has been known under the term of Experimental Eco-Freezones (EEFZ). The term seems to evoke associations that do not share the aim of this paper - namely the idea of 'opting out', of setting up a reserve (to put it a bit squarely). Here the idea is the opposite, namely for ecology and sustainability to be placed on the agenda to such an extent that it can serve as a model for the entire metabolism of society; which starts with production, and soil. It all started at our Ecological congregation 98, a meeting arranged by the EcoNet that took place at Båring Højskole in the autumn of 1998, when a small group of people sat down to get on with the visions of the Kolding Manifesto. Here are a few ideas that we are working on, to my mind essential ones. Eco-Experimental Zones - an introduction The aim - based on the Kolding Manifesto's technology concept and general vision, and on the need for concrete images (visions) of a possible future reality - is to formulate concrete routes of action that will enable an already prolific mass of sustainable technologies and production forms to become fused into units. Units large enough to also bring about a development of our lives - social and cultural as well - which are really the backdrop against which we form every imagining of a possible future, whenever we are trying to form real pictures of it - that is, in technological and organisational terms. The idea of larger-scale experiments on a societal basis is by no means unfamiliar. The island of Samsø has been designated an alternative energy island, and in South Jutland there are serious talks on a regionwide conversion to eco-farming. A government target is to introduce eco-foodstuffs in public institutions, nursing homes, and kindergartens; and even the European Economic Community (EEC) are pointing out the need for making production, environment, culture and social life come together, out there in the rural land. And for the time being, that's what we are talking about - the rural land. As conveyor belt industrialism is withering away, and with the biggest national surplus ever, it's about time that we start conducting hands-on experiments on how we wish to live - not individually (where opportunities are endless), but in social terms. What kind of an entity is this? Above all, an Eco-Experimental Zone is an area within which priorities are made and accepted, more so than outside, and where matters are considered within their material context. Also in terms of economy. For example, outside the zone (where presumably liberal market economy reigns) people (i.e. taxpayers) will pay agriculture for not polluting; and here a non-polluting eco-product will cost more than a chemically based one which, already when manufactured, will involve society in expense for cleansing and disposal. In an experimental zone (with a wildly ambitious target), we could aim for market economy to take itself seriously, meaning the polluter will pick up the bill - provided there is any pollution at all. One spin-off would be for organic foodstuffs to become cheaper than conventional ones - as a consequence of a comprehensive economic understanding and the realised market. And mind you, the term should be taken at face value: It includes three words, and they have equal weight, to be understood literally: "Ecological", "Experimental", and "Zone" -           Ecological: Since the experimental zone targets an interplay between various sustainable initiatives, to be realised by easier rules, we have chosen to let the concept of "ecology" be defined by the Danish eco-labels. Requirements for these objectives are being worked out elsewhere. -           Experimental: Experiments serve to investigate matters, search for new avenues, discover innovative pathways, confirm or disprove hypotheses and ideas. Experiments are to be general, their validity extending beyond the experimenter. Experiments are the zone's offer to the surrounding world. -           Zone: A prerequisite for conducting experiments aiming to bring sustainable and ecological production forms into an interplay is that things that today are prohibited, or extremely difficult to embark on, should be made legal or easier to start up. This goes for bureaucratic procedures, and also over- and detail regulation. Thus, the Eco-Experimental Zone is an area where experimenting is allowed, without colliding with the full array of bans, limits or red-tape of ordinary society. Generally it can be said that in an experimental zone all solutions are allowed, provided they solve a given problem as well as or better than any method already known. In many cases, solving the problem 'adequately' would do. Thus, exemption should be granted from applicable rules, based on fundamental considerations regarding the environment, landscape aesthetics, human health, social contexts, cultural growths, local production, and local democracy. Who is to decide how exemptions are given, and by whom? I would find it prudent for exemptions to be granted by existing authorities; this does, however require that those involved accept and understand the concept, and are loyal to its intentions. So probably there will be a few battles to fight. Frontrunners Viewed by its individual areas the experimental zone will hardly be on the cutting edge, not ecologically either. But, since it is a realisation, it needs to be in terms of cohesion and social vision. More than anything, this will be an area where we find a lot of ecological techniques and initiatives known from elsewhere in this country; however, in the experimental zone, the point is not each single initiative, or enterprise, or idea, but much rather the interplay that should be encouraged by localisation and new rules of administration. Thus, what we have in mind is experimentation with technologies/productions combined with lifeways and forms of organisation - though invariably with production as the starting point. Sustainable productions in a comprehensive sense With a "comprehensive" sustainability concept is meant, a concept to unify environment and economics with culture and social conditions, and a democratic one! A sustainability concept which sees each of the said elements as each other's prerequisites, as opposed to the prevailing view in which culture and social life are seen as entertainment and repair activities respectively, the environment as a set of technicalities, and democracy as an urbane form of social intercourse. Thus, the experimental zone does not primarily target the development of technical gadgets (which is already being done all over the place); instead it should try to make things play together within the structures that both emerge from and constitute a society, including its culture and democracy aspects. This is why the place, the geographical site, is central to the zone concept, the main point being to set up as many as possible of the initiatives that we know of (national and global as well) within a society. Not the society of our choice, but one that emerges because it has to. A necessary society. In that society, as in any other, it would be lovely if everybody loved everybody else, but they don't have to. Our choice is not about choosing one another, but about choosing our production, and the place; yet the chosen technologies bring with them new ways of living together within the familiar ones, which is not the worst way of choosing one another. "Harvest comes before the harvest feast", as the Kolding Manifesto says, and where that principle is brought to bear you can forget all about culture and social life as professional fields of work. Choice of technology Technologies will have to be chosen. What are we allowed to do, technically, within the zone? And how do we decide, with sustainability (in a comprehensive sense) as the underlying concept? One thing is clear. A reasonable technology development must be based on a different way of assessing, on different criteria, and here the reasonable sustainability criteria of the Kolding Manifesto suggest themselves, as a place to start our discussion. The manifesto proposes a number of criteria: - The PRECAUTIONARY criterion. Doubt, any sensible doubt, should always favour the most reasonable technology. - The TENDENCY criterion. Allergies are on the increase, semen quality is declining, more and more people get diabetes. These are tendencies. We don't know why, apart from our nondescript knowledge of the ubiquitous 'development'! This form of directed uncertainty must be respected, be acknowledged as knowledge, and the development as a tendency therefore be changed. - The ESSENTIALITY criterion. Is a given technology essential, perhaps even necessary, and for whom? The 'for whom?' is very significant. - The MOTIVE criterion. What lies behind it: Solving a major problem, fulfilling an unquestionable need, or plain greed? The last point is very important, since questionable needs do exist! - The CONSEQUENCE criterion. Does an intrinsically reasonable technology involve derived effects? Does it support otherwise destructive forces? Does it solve a problem by relaying other and maybe bigger problems to future generations? - The SYMPATHY criterion: Do we like it? To these criteria yet another should be added: - The DEMOCRACY criterion. A technology should allow management by democratic bodies. That is, its consequences should be foreseeable, it should be error-friendly. And then, finally, I also feel it is important that we produce in a manner that invites celebration and ritualisation. After all, there is lot more festivity about a harvest, a launching or a topping-out ceremony than an auditor's report: "Harvest before the harvest feast". The social contract Recently 'Weekendavisen', a Danish weekly newspaper, had a full-page attack on Steen Møller and his strawhouse: Steen (they said) is a social freeloader because, in his strawhouse, he can manage with an annual income of DKK 25,000. (USD 3,300). So Steen is called a sponger who refuses to contribute to our common welfare household! Another DK newspaper, 'Berlingske Tidende', issues a weekly supplement with saleable classy residences - for the chosen few. Monthly rents run in the neighbourhood of Steen's annual income. Such houses are bought and sold by chartered accountants, solicitors, company sharks and other notabilities on either side, but mostly verging on the criminal limit value. A common feature with these folks is that they definitely don't contribute to our common household. The question is if they contribute anything at all! But they do wallow in money. Our zones hardly will; but they will contribute to society's economics and to ecology. Not least by building up a social know-how that will provide solutions for a great many social problems - and it's not just groundwater we have in mind. Creating a society, in which meaning for the individual is something that arises out of the practical chores of everyday life, and together with others, and that doesn't have to be devised by reflective minds, is no minor contribution to society. In such a society, for example, we won't have to fund research projects to prove that building dens and climbing trees is good for children. It should be obvious, even for the eggheads of the 'Weekendavisen' that money can be saved here. And then we still don't talk about the groundwater - and we are well advised not to, since in the logic of the editors clean groundwater does not mean saving. It means more expenditure. By contrast, contaminated groundwater means a dual blessing: First money saved by DK farmers, then a direct profit (funded by taxpayers) to some French company who are the majority stockholders of the water purification business - and own an unidentified share of the very same publishing house. Now, my assertion is that setting up practice-based knowledge on how to live and produce in a way that will not undermine the opportunities of future generations, which does not contaminate our groundwater, and which by its choice of technology and production forms will help promote democratic lifeways, is a contribution to our welfare state which is as sterling as the one delivered by a solicitor specialised in tax dodging, or high payoff enterprises producing allergy-provoking housing and foodstuffs. Social accounting Once we add ecology and experimentation, our accounts with the surrounding society will balance. The experimental zone will produce knowledge of considerable value for the remaining society, which, however, the remaining society is not prepared to make use of as yet. The zone is the living proof that things can be done, not just technically speaking (eco-farming, wind generators, etc.), but also organisationally (co-managements units, co-operative undertakings, tenant-farmer). That we can make production, economy and environment come together with social and cultural needs. Borne by technology and visions, but not by fantasies. It all sums up to a liveable democracy, and a lively democracy is required for this to happen. The zone does the work of harvesting such social insights; in return, the surrounding society will ease a number of restrictions. The zone concept leans upon - and can be seen as a further development of - familiar national initiatives, such as free-municipalities and one renewable energy island (Samsø). It should be well worth noting that several targets of the EU Agenda 2000 programme are pertinent to this line of thought - targets which the governments have now shot down, to the great gratification of DK farmers, and which for that very reason are worth sticking to. If the EU mammoth is able to handle an inclusive landscape concept, with its entire content of nature, heritage monuments, production, social relations and culture, then any Danish municipality should be, too. Even if Danish agriculture insists on the ideals of the defunct Soviet Union: specialisation, monopolies, regimentation, chemicalisation, control and state subsidies. The ambition-triangle Setting up an experimental zone is a gradual and dynamic process. We can picture it as a triangle, standing on a vertex, and where ambitions increase upward through the triangle, as more and more fields are included into experimental zones. Thus, the triangle widens, as new sets of criteria and fields of ambition are added. It is intended as an overview for handling (inter alia) whatever new sets of rules and exemptions are needed, as we are approaching the vision. Thus, the triangle (read by horizontal sections) tries to illustrate the connection between the level of ambition that grows upward, and the elements which are included during the process. The bottom is about the material only. The triangle consists of four sections: 1) Environment and health 2) The restricted sustainability concept which operates with material and environmental issues, though in a wider sense 3) The comprehensive sustainability concept which involves social, cultural and democratic sustainability. 4) The vision. The bottom horizontal section addresses the field of environment and health only. Here, for example, we are satisfied with the absence of harmful substances in the water we actually drink, while the quality of groundwater, or water in streams that is not being used does not matter. In this section we are also satisfied if harmful substances are present only in quantities below a so-called limit value, and it is sufficient if, as individuals (consumer), we can avoid ingesting undesired substances. In terms of ambitions, that is the present situation, though not in reality. Not even such an opt-out is really possible. In this section, carcinogenous substances will be removed from car exhausts, provided that it does not distort competition; at the same time billions are invested in increased car traffic. Higher up we hit the field of the restricted sustainability concept. Here the national eco-labels suffice. The limited understanding of environment and health is replaced by the concept of ecology, and thus nature is brought into play. Problems are seen in a wider context, also involving future generations and resources, though still mostly concerned with their material basis. The comprehensive sustainability concept introduces issues such as living conditions, democracy, social relations and culture, which are understood as mutually derived. At this stage I no longer prove my concerns for the ozone layer and the groundwater at the cold counter; such issues are decided upon in democratic fora. Indeed, once we get that high up in the triangle, money can no longer buy the right to destroy the ozone layer, the groundwater, or the living conditions of future generations. We are closing in on the vision, the image behind it all which provides the energy for getting the whole process going - and keep it running. Thus, in the bottom part of the triangle, we are speaking of ecological production only. Eco-farming, eco-construction etc., with material aspects as the main focus. And techniques, which we will adopt from the whole country, and the whole world. Then the organisational aspects (including economy) are added, and finally political and administrative issues. The vision is the top field, embracing all the fields below; yet, the relevance of the environment/health field is probably limited, and we are dealing with relations that will require a good deal of discussion in order to make the surroundings accept them as belonging in an experimental zone. Their problem! The ambition triangle exemplified. Exemplifies what the different levels of ambition could include (any additions are welcomed). Arrows between individual letters would be helpful for illustrating which is a precondition to which A: Limit values, repair of known damage; short time window B: Eco-labels valid and adequate C: E-codes (additives) absent, or their number reduced. D: Eco-labels replaced by P-labels - meaning that eco-products are no longer labelled, since they are standard. By contrast, non-ecological products will be given a P-labelling (derived from 'pesticides') E: Sustainability labelling no longer needed, since there are no P-products left. F: Co-operatives and other forms of joint ownership in production are promoted and given preferential treatment. Schools and production are integrated. G: Subsidies or reduced VAT for eco-labelled products. H: True freehold is introduced, with unlimited rights of disposal and succession to land (tenant-farmer); however, land cannot be sold. I: True market economy, meaning that any environmental impacts will be included in the pricing of all products, thus making eco-products cheaper; e.g. eco-milk is cheaper than p-milk. J: No import of tomatoes in season. Import of strawberries to be totally discontinued - only available in-season. On the top level the number of restrictions and controls are reduced to practically nil. Redundant administrators and legal advisors are offered compensatory employment in the turnips, and instructed by formerly redundant fellow citizens, now in employment. We'll start somewhere! The first step is agriculture. Eco-farmers have done the work, proved that this can be done; but now it needs to be formulated as a societal and sustainable vision. And it is urgent. Right now the endeavours of our present minister for agri-foodstuffs are to make eco-farming the purveyors of delicious warm dishes for the cocktail belt, and everything but a vision of sustainability. And a good place to start, too - with agriculture. It needs to be converted, and once the derived effects begin to pop up, industrial production will start becoming visible in our sustainable vision. For a 100 percent conversion in a region does have consequences, material consequences - and organisational ones. Plant breeders will need manure from animal husbandry, meaning that they need to have such a production! There must be a harmony between animals and plants, and the necessary rotation of crops could very well make farm units strike mutually binding agreements, on when one can deliver manure, and when a plot needs to be sown with grass and clover in order to rebalance the nitrogen supply. Strawstalls for animals, and maybe strawhouses for people will produce a dramatic change in cash flows, and in the amount of interest accrued on passive capital. That, however, will require an exemption from the Danish building code, and very likely from sewerage regulations, urban and rural zoning plans, etc. And then the products will be manufactured. By industrial or craftsmanlike methods, or a combination of both. Hands will be needed. Possibly our taxation system will have to be reorganised, from tax on labour to tax on energy consumption, and tax on production systems that stop people communicating, and with tax reliefs for production forms where children can join in. Not as child labour, but in order to experience the unspeakable joy of feeling useful, and in order to see with their own eyes what hands can achieve. A conversion to eco-farming will, in all probability, continue to require manual hoeing of turnips for quite a while. Meaning that on hoeing-days all children will have a day off, and that is the payment for going to school - a kind of ecological consumer payment, with positive implications for the semen quality amongst farmers. But then, there will also be a harvest feast in the evening, including roast lamb and barbecued piglet. Some problems are bigger than others. 'England has too many dairies', a CEO of MD (a Danish dairy conglomerate) stated, after squandering 11/2 billion on trying to correct the imbalance. If that is so, one might presume that was England's own problem, and that we have problems enough in Denmark with our own lamentable dairy production. But no, not for enterprising co-operative dairy people of the new mould. And MD knows the cure. Knows how to reduce the number of hands in the dairy sector. They are actually experts, and they register by deed their victories (= shut-downs of Danish dairies), so buildings and machinery will never again be used for processing milk. That, of course, is illegal which does not stop anyone when it comes to free market forces. In the experimental zone we want to take the opposite course. Not only do we not consider it our calling to have the number of English dairies reduced. Actually, we would like to have more dairies in Denmark. And on the meat-side, we want more farm butcheries. These already exist, but there is room for more development, in which case more legislation and/or new exemptions are needed. And maybe, we finally have the technology that will allow the butcher to go from farm to farm and slaughter the pigs on site, instead of transporting them to a slaughterhouse, no matter how small and local. For they can be small. A couple of containers will do. With further processing of the meat on site or at the neighbours. This approach would imply a major added value - since value added on a kilo of parmesan ham is a lot higher than on a kilo of canned pork shoulder. Much bigger. Big enough for Italians to import Danish pork, process it, and send it back in the form of parmesan ham - of course keeping the added value for themselves. Danish agriculture has single-mindedly staked on economies of scale - the only word the economic whizz-kids of Danish agriculture know - and have dropped quality. And quality does call for reasonable technologies, and small units, at least smaller than now. Small eco-dairies are already familiar in the landscape; but naturally the zones will be freed from the absurd and illegal ban of the dairy-giants on using old dairy-buildings for milk processing. In the eco-zone the law is the law! And in the eco-zone milk will not be imported as long as demand can be covered by local production. When this group held its first meeting, an actual example of a reasonable, small and relatively money-independent technology could be seen right outside the window. The meeting took place at Bygholm, a national research station at Horsens, where Bent Hindrup is experimenting with strawbale-tents for eco-pig production. Annual yields of piglets per sow are good, better than those of the piggery-barons in their slurry-dispersing monster-factories, and investments in productive apparatus very modest. Should pig quotations plummet, then the tent is packed away, and the rest of the pigsty is spread on the fields as manure. And the best is yet to come: Such a stall cannot be mortgaged! It is a small-scale technology, and above it all, it is reasonable economics. Not only in terms of livelihood (which it is, too), but also because it stands for a way to break away from the economic run-amock that our present society and pig production are involved in. This means that with such a technology we can free ourselves of a number of societal and artificial economic bonds, above all that each generation is bound to run faster than the previous one to merely uphold the same level of consumption. A breakaway from that mechanism might also pave the way for a break with consumption as a measure for welfare. And if I'm not quite mistaken, our zone might even be big enough for our farms, slaughterhouse, dairy, wind energy park, biogas plant and the associated suppliers of electronics and repair services to deliver enough children for a local school? And if I'm not quite mistaken, such a school would consider our community as a benefit, and not as a burden (which is the case with our present education act). This would all amount to communitarian wishful thinking - if it weren't because the building blocks for our dream are in fact already available, though scattered across the country. They just need to be put together in a mutual regional interplay. As production-related couplings emerge, as we move upwards in the triangle, we can bring in more and more things, and more and more difficult ones - not as novel contrivances, but as the sequels of those already realised - and in order to conquer whatever barriers we are bound to meet, as cohesion and ambitions increase. In the upper section (the broadest one) we could image things such as: - A stop to energy import to the zone - A stop to import of tomatoes, as long as 'home-grown' ones are available. - An upper limit to how much time a child can spend in a childcare facility, minimum requirements on the amount of 'sty-space' allowed for each child, a ban on fixation, and a demand that children should have access to the open for a specified time each day. - A shift of taxation from hands to fuel - A shift to tenant-farmer The last suggestion would imply a major societal change. A change from the present situation, where each generation, assisted by shrewd solicitors and estate agents are doing their utmost to economically burden the lives of the next generation, to a situation where land can no longer be made the object of speculation, but instead a taxation that will secure optimal management, within ecological frameworks. This reminds of the vision that wartime parents had for their children: providing an easier life for their offspring than their own! Now, try to make an economic whizz-kid swallow that bait! Who is in? In surveys, when asked what they wish the most, Danish children answer that they want more time with Dad and Mum. At a time where societal planning is heading the opposite way - i.e. parents spending more and more time at work and their children more and more time in a childcare facility - that wish could be our take-off. Especially so as children don't have any difficulty understanding that one has to behave decently towards earth, animals, and people. But can regulation fulfil that kind of wish? Hardly. It is not possible, nay desirable to set up a prohibition zone where one is made 'culpable' if in possession of an 'imported' tomato. At best, the evolution should go by itself, through mutually binding, non-formulated contracting. Contracts that spring from transparency and the proximity offered by reasonable technologies and local production, also after the pioneering spirit has dwindled. However, actual agreements are also conceivable, in which the contracting parties will receive some kind of credits for environmental impacts saved, e.g. by not importing Spanish tomatoes, or power from Prussia - the contractors of a community that does not buy imported tomatoes or power. Or what about the ceiling on the time children spend in childcare facilities? Could such an obligation be combined with a right to a cheaper form of living quarters? In an experimental zone a house will not have to respect a number of building standards, so long as it is not risky or hazardous for its inhabitants or neighbours. This should be easy to manage in a time when building standards become more and more exacting, while actual houses become poorer and poorer (also in terms of health). A possible contract could be, that once the construction of strawhouses at DKK 300 m2 is allowed (saving society a considerable expenditure for allergies provoked by much too dense plastic-painted concrete buildings) - then the quid pro quo could be an obligation to look after one's own children for a specified number of years, instead of spending any money saved on a BMW. Exemptions Generally it is difficult to obtain exemptions for alternative toilet and sewage systems, for hygienic reasons. This might appear to be reasonable; however, given the fact that emitting diesel exhausts requires no exemptions whatsoever, even in densely populated areas (500 deaths a year), I suppose one could imagine a societal agreement on this, too? In our ecological zone we commit ourselves to not pouring carcinogenic exhaust into the faces of children and grown-ups (our traffic minister refrains from any moves, for reasons of free competition); in return we want an admission to use the toilet types that have already been allowed in Sweden (we prudently take one step at a time). Now, what does the zone look like? We'll start from the bottom - and the top. With rain and groundwater, earth and air - and with the assumption that basically they are all best off if left as nature organised them. Basically, since the days are long gone when they were untouched, at least by man. There's just too many of us. Nature no longer has the last word (apart from the one and final one), and never will again; but nature continues to have the first word. This is our point of departure, while modelling away to bend things to our wishes. Therefore, the tiniest Experimental Eco-Zone will contain a drainage area. That is, an area from which all precipitation ends up in the same stream. A natural region, not divided by streams (as in the old-time parishes), but by watersheds. You see, the experiment is meant to demonstrate a few things about groundwater and lakes, i.e. the impacts of converting to eco-farming, for groundwater, streams, lakes, and the sea. That is all well and good, but what about towns and cities? How can we include the locus of our most massive consumption? Here exemptions are needed. Talking about urban zones delimited by watersheds doesn't make sense. Urban zones have to deal with urban things. One could imagine a coupling between a rural and an urban neighbourhood: The farmland will provide the town or neighbourhood with eco-foodstuffs. In return the town will provide their correctly processed wastes (from kitchen and toilets). This will make graphic how a change in urban consumption, and different methods of cultivation can make the groundwater under the eco-zone clean - the water that, maybe, you'll see coming out of a tap in some town. One could also imagine an urban eco-egg production, funded in a similar way as the DK homeservice system i.e. with an hour-based state subsidy ? In that case state exemptions would create a deliberate and determined competition bias: We support local low-yield egg production and bring people into employment. All in all, a marked feature of the experimental zone is that changed practices will be allowed for a number of different areas. Obviously that does not imply that existing productions have to convert or disappear; but it does mean that within the zone conversion towards sustainability (in some sense of the word) needs to be made easier than outside, and possibly favoured by subsidies or tax deductions. For example, a mixed farm production including both agrochemical and ecological units is not interesting within the zone, since the environmental consequences would not be clearly in evidence. Any funds not allocated for optional environmentally friendly agricultural initiatives could (or should) be invested in a 100 percent conversion within an experimental zone. Or another possibility: environmentally friendly forms avoiding negative environmental impacts could be given a tax refund, the equivalent of the money saved by the state because there is no need for water treatment and tidying up. Or another idea: shared ownership of a telebus could be made tax-deductible, parallel to fiscal transport allowance - under the provision, perhaps, that you don't own a car, or that private driving within the zone is prohibited for participants. (We need to think of solutions that do not require control). We could think up a zillion things ... but The strength of the idea of experimental zones is that basically we don't need to imagine anything at all. It's all there. Created in the latest decades, and then in the previous 10,000 years, in the form of reasonable technologies. Now, in the experimental zone we just want a chance to let the technique and production of a sustainable vision unfold in close harmony, in order to let the societal aspects of production grow into a society. A free space where we won't have to say 'Sorry!' each time we jeopardise the opportunities of future generations. Where nature to the maximum extent (both technically and economically) sets our production norms. Where the florid words of Brundtland-prizewinners can realised, without being tripped up. Where one won't have to pay extra for not doing harm, and is not paid to do good, either - apart from the pleasure of doing the right thing. Ecological experimental freezones were the subject of debate at our 1999 Ecological congregation. At Båring Højskole a group of 120 arranged to meet on Oct. 8-10. The main purpose was to solve the problem, that we need to find some areas where many of the ongoing ecological initiatives in Denmark can be brought to work in a more comprehensive context. The following are the results and conclusions of our eco-congregation: - A working party was set up, to proceed with the project. Its secretariat is with the EcoNet organisation, phone +45 6224 4324. - Funds should be raised, for the equivalent of a full-time salary, enabling a 'professional' to investigate administrative and legal barriers to establishing eco-experimental zones and reasonable ecological initiatives in general. The Danish Association of Eco-Communities will take active part in this work. - Planning for another meeting next year, with reps. from all green organisations. - The national planning dept. of the DK environmental ministry invited a deputy representing eco-experimentative concepts to take part in a monitoring group around the new 'Knowledge Centre for Rural Planning'. (More information on the centre on www.countryside.dk.) - A homepage covering the entire project will be set up, including on-line debate with room for thoughts and concepts, dialogues and opinions, towards the realisation of such experimental zones. Join the debate on: www.eco-net.dk/exp-eco-zone.