Memorandum submitted by
Professor John M Bryden[6]
(H24)
BACKGROUND
The Commission's proposals for agricultural,
rural and cohesion policies following Agenda 2000 were issued
in March, and a decision is expected hopefully early in 1999.
It is I think fair to say that European rural
policy is at a crossroads. By rural policy I mean policies for
those regions and localities we choose to define as rural. My
understanding is therefore that rural policy is a spatial and
not a sectoral policy. Its goals are, or ought to be, the sustainable
development of rural areas in the economic, social and environmental
spheres, which are increasingly inter-connected. In practice of
course agricultural, forestry, and related sectoral policies are
a very important component of the so far very fragmented approach
to the development of rural space and society. Nevertheless, the
tendency at EU level has been to move towards a more coherent
and hopefully integrated spatial approach to both urban and rural
policy, especially after the Single European Act, subsequent reform
of the structural funds and publication of the Commission document
on the Future of Rural Society a decade ago. This and subsequent
adjustments following the Treaty of Union, and currently the Treaty
of Amsterdam, not to mention CAP reforms in 1992, recognises the
existence and indeed persistence of spatial inequalities within
the Union, and the need to cope with consequences of internal
free trade and a single currency, both of which can reinforce
spatial inequality for reasons which are beyond the scope of this
memorandum. Agenda 2000 basically continues in the same vein,
and reflects both the reality of monetary union (if initially
partial) as well as plans for eastern enlargement and the forthcoming
millennium round of trade talks, in which the various parties
are committed to progressing the agreements reached on agriculture
in the Uruguay Round. However, from the rural development perspective,
the outcome of Agenda 2000 is very disappointing and may get even
more so as negotiations proceed.
KEY POINTS
ABOUT THE
COMMISSIONS PROPOSALS
FOLLOWING AGENDA
2000
There is a minimal CAP reform—for present
purposes we can note:—
— the deepening of the 1992 reforms
in terms price cuts with partial compensation and some modulation,
— the introduction of a national envelope
of funding linked to modulation and cross-compliance which can
be spent on additional agri-environment measures,
— the shift of HLCAs to an area basis,
and
— the introduction of a so-called horizontal
rural development measure.
— In addition, agricultural structural
measures formerly financed by EAGGF Guidance will now be financed
by EAGGF Guarantee, at least outside Objective 1 regions
— The changes to HLCAs and, to the
extent that they are implemented, voluntary x-compliance and the
national envelope to provide additional resources for agri-environment,
represent a further "greening" of the CAP.
Spatially designated regions given structural
fund priority will fall from four (Objectives 1, 2, 5b and 6)
to two (new Objectives 1 which will include 6, and 2), and the
population covered by these will fall from 52.2 per cent of the
EU total to 38 per cent. The eligibility rules for both Objectives
will be stricter. Objective 2 will include declining industrial,
rural, and urban areas, and cover about 18 per cent of the EU
population, but the proportion of the population covered by the
rural component will be 5 per cent, which compares with 9 per
cent for the present Objective 5b. If the criteria are upheld,
models predict significant loss of designations in the UK, although
there are of course transitional periods as well as Commission
guarantees that there will be a "safety net" ensuring
that no member State will lose more than one-third of its current
Objective 5b and 2 coverage in the transition to the new Objective
2.
Outside the new Objective 1 and 2 only Objective
3 and the new EU "horizontal" rural development measure
will apply. This measure will apply to all rural areas, and will
be integrated with the ESF and ERDF measures in Objective 1 and
2 regions. The Regulation proposes a "menu" of measures
which can combine the existing "accompanying measures"
(agri-environment, farm forestry and early retirement), the re-configured
LFA compensatory allowances, other Objective 5a measures (including
processing and marketing of agricultural products), and measures
formerly eligible for EAGGF funding under Objective 5b (farm diversification,
conservation measures on farms, infrastructure linking to farming,
etc). It should be noted that only agri-environment is obligatory—member
States may "mix and match" all other elements to meet
their own needs and circumstances. The main weakness is the failure
to extend support to non-farmers, especially local community development
and small and very small enterprises. Linked to this is the fact
that the regulation links rural development measures to Article
39 of the Treaty which solely and exclusively refers to the agricultural
sector. Although the wording of the Regulation is in places encouraging,
it is anchorage in Article 39 which is the stumbling block. Moreover,
even given such room for manoeuvre as there is in the existing
wording of Article 31 of the proposed Regulation, it is known
that several key member States are against extending EAGGF aid
beyond the farming sector.
The regulations are not clear about how the
new rural accompanying measure will be implemented by member States.
The role of regions, localities and communities in the planning
and programming and implementation processes is not specified,
and there is no reference to democratic structures. Nor is there
any reference to links with national policies. The actual implementation
process will thus depend to a very large extent on how the member
States decide to implement it, even if the Commission will probably
not want too many sub-national rural development programmes to
negotiate. In practice, national Governments including the UK
are likely to be reluctant to devolve decision making powers on
the mix of measures (and the allocation of funds between them)
in the rural development regulation to local levels, and will
in most cases opt for national programmes, with the possible exception
of the Article 31 measures. With our own national structures for
regional and local "governance" in major upheaval, it
is unlikely that meaningful local strategic planning structures
will be in place in time to allow the idea of "single integrated
rural plans" to be a practical possibility, and even in Scotland
where proposals are more advanced than in England or Wales, the
amount of regional devolution in the preparation of plans is likely
to be very limited.
The probability that the major spending schemes
covered by the new Regulation—HLCAs, Agri-environment and
Afforestation—will remain national schemes, and continue
to have priority at that level, means that resources for Article
31 measures (at least outside the Objective areas) will be severely
limited.
This limitation will be reinforced by the current
review of "assisted areas" in the UK, which is likely
to lead to fewer areas having such status, and all or most of
these are likely to be contiguous with the Objective areas. This
means that the level of public support for rural development measures
will be severely curtailed where assisted area status does not
apply. Although there is a de minimus provision for small
grants to enterprises funded through ERDF, it must be noted that
there is no such de minimus rule at present for EAGGF funded
projects (but we still await the implementing Regulation).
There will be three "community initiatives"
financed by a retention of 5 per cent of the structural funds.
One of these will be a rural initiative, along the lines of LEADER,
but avoiding some of the problems of LEADER II. The Commission
wants this to apply to all rural areas, and will be negotiating
for between 2.5 and 3 bECU out of the total of around 10 bECU
for the three initiatives. However, there may be practical problems
extending the initiative beyond Objective 1 and 2 regions, and
in any event the Commission is likely to wish to see any "LEADER
III" applied in a more discriminatory way, for example by
giving priority to designated "fragile" areas or by
announcing pre-conceived themes, such that the number of such
projects is reduced (there are about 900 at present in the EU).
As it stands, Agenda 2000 opens a door to a
more integrated approach to sustainable rural development, especially
in the new Objective 1 and 2 regions. However, outside these designated
areas the limitation of the new horizontal rural development measure
to support given to farmers falls far short of what is required,
and what was demanded at Cork, to achieve integrated rural development.
In this situation, it will be up to member States to develop an
IRP approach which can combine national and EU support measures
in rural areas, and which can devolve responsibility to sub-national
levels. At least initially resources are likely to be very constrained,
and the "assisted areas" problem may act as a further
constraint. However, the proposals to take rural development outside
Objective 1 regions into EAGGF Guarantee Section would permit
future savings on agricultural policies to be transferred to rural
development. On the other hand this, and the restriction of measures
to farmers, may make "rural development" measures more
vulnerable to attack in the next GATT "millennium round"
of trade talks.
National policies affecting rural areas are
obviously important, especially in relation to land use planning,
housing, health, support for enterprise and training, transport,
taxation, land ownership and tenure. It is vital that the "integration
agenda" does not only refer to EU policies—integration
with national policies is essential. In the Government's discussion
paper on rural development in Scotland, the following are highlighted:
(a) There is a stress on the over-arching
goal of economic, social and environmental sustainability, viewed
more holistically than hitherto, and the parallel need to ensure
that all sectoral policies contribute to this over-arching goal.
(b) The partnership approach is the way forward
at all levels.
(c) Community involvement, empowerment, social
"inclusion" are key components.
(d) There is a tough line on CAP reform,
and more stress on economic diversification in rural areas.
(e) The democratic agenda is highlighted.
(f) The rationalisation of schemes and delivery
mechanisms is stressed.
Devolution means an increasing differentiation
of policies between the constituent parts of the UK, and in this
respect agriculture, rural development, forestry, etc are devolved
issues. For example, there are as yet no such clear guidelines
for rural development policy in England or Wales.
In principle at least, the policy orientations
in Scotland are broadly consistent with the tendencies observed
at EU level. In terms of Scottish devolution, the UK will be well
placed in moving towards the significant EU shifts towards regional
subsidiarity. However it is perhaps less well placed to cope with
subsidiarity at more local levels, especially in England and Wales.
At the very least, decisions on a Scottish rural development policy
will be a Scottish question. Although its obvious that most of
the CAP will remain a centralised policy, the new rural development
regulation with its menu approach allows for devolution and subsidiarity,
and since it is horizontal the question of how it will be implemented
remains important inside and outside Objective 1 and 2 regions.
Several broad questions arise in this context, however, namely:—
— How much freedom will be given to
Scotland both in regard to the menu options selected and the way
in which it is implemented?
— How will that freedom be exercised?
— How feasible will it be to join EU
with national measures at local authority/regional levels? [for
example, links with Community Planning, Local Enterprise Companies,
and strategic partnerships dealing with Transport, Housing, Social
Exclusion, etc]?
— How will the EU resource for the
rural development package be decided and what will the constituent
parts of the UK get out of that resource?
— Will there be Scottish, English and
Welsh National Envelopes and, if so, how will they be calculated?
— How will decisions on the use of
the Envelope(s) be taken—will they be linked to priorities
under the rural package, for example?
In my view we now have the opportunity to take
some bold steps forward in integrated rural policy in the UK,
building not only on Agenda 2000, but also changing national policies
concerning regional development, rural development, land ownership,
tenure access and use, community planning, forestry, and environment.
Whether or not the new horizontal rural development measure is
able to have some focus on non-agricultural elements in the rural
economy and society, we need to build local Integrated Strategies,
and we should get on with this now, if necessary pushing the interpretation
of the rural development regulation as far as it will go.
The central aim of such an IRP should be to
increase the social, economic and environmental sustainability
of rural areas and support diversity. It should thus be people-focused
and encourage long term viability through stimulating competitiveness,
social equity and cohesion, and contribute to EU, national, regional
and local needs.
At the same time, the policy must recognise
diversity:
This aim must be pursued differently in varying
contexts and locales; a spatial approach is therefore implicit
in policy formulation and implementation, as is subsidiarity and
devolution.
IRP Organisation: With any form of IRP it is
important to identify the respective roles of the EU, national
governments, regions and localities, and the relationship between
these. Key issues concern subsidiarity, devolution, local empowerment,
partnership, efficiency, effectiveness, democracy and integration.
OPTIONS FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
Basic options are
1. A centralised model: the content and
priorities in the EU rural development package (and use of the
national envelope) is decided by MAFF/SOAEFD/WOAEFD, as is the
case with the accompanying measures and structural measures at
present. There is no connection with local and regional strategic
planning, and they remain largely a sectoral policy. A few years
ago this outcome would have been almost inevitable, but we do
have an opportunity to change this.
2. A decentralised model, where only broad
guidelines and limits are preset by MAFF etc but detailed content,
priorities and modes of implementation are left to local or what
I will call regional levels for the absence of a better term!
3. This second option also opens up the
possibility of integration with economic development, environmental,
social and strategic or community planning, whether inside Objective
1 or 2. It also offers a greater opportunity to involve democratically
elected authorities.
I want to make it clear that I am in favour
of the second option, and also of integration. There is far too
great a divide between the various public agencies responsible
for delivering the different components of economically, socially
and environmentally sustainable development in the UK, too many
separate and even conflicting strategic plans for the same—or
more or less the same—localities or regions, too many programmes
and initiatives which lack synergy or, worse, even conflict with
each other. Not only extremely wasteful of scarce public resources,
but also confusing for the ultimate clients of policy.
We can think of two possible models for implementation.
One model is essentially built around agri-environmental
and farm diversification issues, and encompasses farm structural
change, forestry, and farm-linked rural development, but it involves
a new and broader philosophy of land use, and land use policies.
This model implies that for the foreseeable future the agricultural
"community" is a central component of the policy, in
economic, environmental and social terms. This is roughly the
starting point of the new "rural development" accompanying
measure.
However, in order to have a more integrated
policy, and to fulfil sustainability objectives, existing agri-environmental,
agri-forestry, HLCA, and farm diversification schemes would have
to be more clearly linked than they are at present with local
community and rural business development, and embrace the wider
rural community beyond farming. The need for greater local accountability
and democracy in the determination of local priorities could be
achieved by developing regional programmes with local authority
involvement. At present, for example, the agri-environment targets
are largely determined by sectoral "experts" at various
levels, although increasingly this process involves some local
partners in environmental and agricultural sectors. In order to
embrace the broader portfolio of measures now envisaged by Agenda
2000, forestry and less favoured area support issues, together
with marketing and processing of farm produce, would also need
to be included.
This model's main weakness, and it is a major
issue, is that it does not go beyond farming to support the many
small and very small enterprises which are often crucial for rural
communities, or community development.
The second option aims to develop a more integrated
spatial approach to rural policy and starts from the position
that if we want an integrated and holistic approach to rural development
at regional and local levels this will have to start with getting
the national and sub-national frameworks right.
One key component would be:—
"Regional"[7]
partnerships formed to prepare strategic guidelines to meet the
overarching goal of sustainable rural development, and covering
all economic, social and environmental elements. Let's all row
the boat together and in the same direction! For example, partnerships
could involve Local Authorities, TECs/LECs, EN/CC/RDC/SNH regions,
ATBs, key NGOs with regional presence, Universities and colleges.
This would be a new approach to strategic planning
at local and regional levels, not dissimilar to recent ideas on
"community planning"[8].
It would bring all the many and various types of planning and
programming for rural areas together in unified strategic plans,
including where relevant Objective 1 or 2, or the rural development
accompanying measure, LEADER, Indicative Forest Strategies, National
Parks, Local Agenda 21, Planning for Real, Locality Planning,
TEC/LEC Business Plans etc. Regional partnerships would need to
be complemented by local partnerships, created largely on a voluntary
basis, which would bring together local interests and organisations,
encourage active participation and involvement of local people,
and create their own strategies, which would then feed in to regional
strategies. Central government departments could be observers
and advisors, but as they must adjudicate on strategic programmes
and allocate funding for them, it is perhaps better that they
not be formally part of the strategic partnerships. [This would
be one major difference as compared with the present Objective
1 and 5b Partnerships].
The eventual outcome would be a single rolling
Integrated Local Strategy for each locality, and each Region,
to guide the activities of the Agencies, local authorities and
organisations in that area, whether dealing with EU or national
funding or, more usually both. It would also form the basis of
a "contract" with central government departments, sectoral
agencies and, where relevant, the EC, with these central levels
providing support int he form of a "global grant". The
implication is that there would be a single set of targets and
indicators for each region which would allow a single system of
monitoring and evaluation, and avoid conflicts which arise through
the practice of defining different performance targets for each
Agency and Department. Central government and/or the EC would
have one negotiation with each region. All EC schemes would feed
into one integrated regional strategy, rather than each requiring
their own. Duplication of effort would be prevented. Ultimate
beneficiaries (farms, rural enterprises, communities etc) would
have a clear framework, and simpler procedures, for accessing
relevant advice and support. In principle at least the relationships
between regions and localities would be similar to those between
regions and national/EU levels—that is, the "global
grant" principle could apply to competencies which were devolved
to the local level.
This model would allow:—
— a distinct rural policy to be developed;
— a simplified and more effective policy
approach;
— great flexibility to meet local needs
while pursuing national and European goals;
— a greater degree of regional and
local self-determination.
CONCLUSIONS
I believe that there is a broad agreement that
a more integrated and decentralised rural policy approach is the
"right way to go" in the medium term. There is also
a broad consensus about the principles, aims and objectives, scope
and organisation of any Integrated Rural Policy (IRP). However,
there remain genuine concerns about the precise nature and form
of an IRP. Inevitably at EU, UK, Scottish and Welsh levels, there
will have to be sufficient flexibility in any IRP to function
within the constraints and opportunities imposed/generated by
diverse institutional settings, needs and circumstances. For the
foreseeable future, then, an IRP may well need to function within
a framework of sectoral policies at EU and national levels, and
cope with differentiated possibilities for the decentralisation
and devolution of these policies to "lower" regional
and sub-regional levels. However, this does not rule out the development
of an integrated framework to modify the application of sectoral
policies at local and regional levels, whether these are national
or European in origin. That is what the models I have discussed
are about.
As I stated earlier in this Memorandum, we have
an historic opportunity to move much closer towards the kind of
decentralised and integrated policy that I believe to be desirable.
It may not be feasible, because of the state of flux which our
institutional structures are currently facing, to pull all of
this off in the immediate planning period, which in any case will
be very short (to be completed in 1999). But it should be possible
to make significant progress towards it if the right signals are
given very soon.
Finally, let me say that I am convinced that
as we move into the new Millennium, rural policies will continue
to move in the direction I have indicated—decentralisation,
integration, a partnership approach, and an over-arching spatial
focus and sustainability goal. The pressures bringing this about
are partly concerned with EMU, partly with Enlargement, and partly
with the next GATT round. There are of course some additional
challenges, including:—
1. The tendency of lobbies to hang on tenaciously
to the unreformed CAP model, and prevent resources flowing into
wider rural development activities;
2. The emergent views on Urban development
reflecting "growth pole" ideas;
3. Lack of understanding of rural diversity,
and its implications.
7 September 1998
6 Joint Director, Arkleton Centre for Rural Development
Research, University of Aberdeen. Back
7
I am using the term "region" loosely-in my view the
RDA regions in England are far too large for the purposes I have
in mind. However, a "region" such as the Highlands and
Islands in Scotland would be reasonable. Back
8
By "regional level" I generally have in mind the level
of unitary local authorities or some combination of local authorities
arrived at by agreement between them (eg the Highlands and Islands
could be one region). A constraint in the context of EU programmes
will be the number of SPDs etc they are willing to negotiate. Back
|
