Memorandum submitted by Dr Colin Hindmarch
(V06)
Response specifically in relation to: support
for agriculture (1); ensuring a strategic overview supported by
a competent scientific infrastructure (2), effective delivery
(3).
Refs in [square brackets] refer to paragraphs in
the Rural Strategy
1. The proposals encourage support for agriculture
and attempt to maximise environmental benefits
They have depth: they put agriculture at the
core of the rural economy [11] then role out support for the economic
and social regeneration [12, 18] of the countryside. They also
consider such things as planning [24], transport [50], affordable
housing [50, 58] and tourism [93, 94]; all of which are important
to a vibrant countryside. The proposals are also committed to
enhancing the value of the countryside [69a and b] and delivering
sound outcomes through organisational streamlining [99].
2. The proposals suggest maintaining a centralised
overview, which should help to secure specialisims, standardised
data collection and national level surveillance
In part, they cater for these concerns by: improving
the rural evidence base [2] and providing clear national delivery
standards [6, 10, 11, 12, 35f]. They also promote the spirit of
"Thinking rural, accepting regional variation, but holding
to account against national standards" (99e), which is fundamental
to maintaining regionally appropriate patterns of biodiversity
and farm types. However, it should be pointed out to the authors
that since they mentioned foot and mouth [1] it might have been
prudent of them to be a little more explicit about the need for
the national surveillance of plant and animal disease (1d) and
the importance of maintaining a pool of high-level specialised
skills (4b).
High-level skills are mentioned in relation
to environment [71].
3. Delivery (paras 7, 8, 9)
The proposals are largely sound—even good.
They recognise: the need for new methods of governance and delivery
[13], including; decoupling policy and delivery [43], and the
setting up of rural priority boards [36]; removing overlaps and
inefficiencies in public bodies [34], together with the need to
improve accountability in the form of PSA targets [26]. They also
recognise the need to improve knowledge transfer [19] and promote
business links using "additional" money [32].
Unfortunately, there is not much mention of
the direct involvement of civil society (Institute of Biology,
Biosciences Federation, among others) in the process of governance
(paragraph 10). This should be of some concern to a government
that prides itself on taking independent scientific advice and
being "inclusive".
16 September 2004
| 
