Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Centre for Rural Economy University of Newcastle upon Tyne
(V08a)
INTRODUCTION
We appeared before the Committee on the 2 November
2004 as part of its inquiry into the Government's Rural Delivery
Strategy. The Committee explored with us our criticism that after
almost two years of a review process that began with the appointment
of Lord Haskins to the Rural Delivery Review in November 2002
the Government's Rural Strategy represents a partial and disappointing
package of institutional reforms. We argued that the reforms in
the Rural Strategy give the impression of "work in progress",
and that there were several gaps in the Strategy document that
begged important questions. The Committee asked if we could consider
what—"in an ideal world and starting with a clean sheet
of paper"—a rural strategy should look like and how
the institutional structures for improved rural delivery might
be arranged. We have been happy to oblige and so in this supplementary
note, following an introductory overview, we address the following
questions:
— What are the main gaps in the current
reform proposals contained in the Government's Rural Strategy?
— What should be the objectives set
out in a rural strategy?
— What, in an ideal world, should be
the institutional structure for rural delivery?
OVERVIEW
While we welcomed the fact that a major review
has been carried out, especially in the light of the pressing
need for simplification in rural delivery arrangements, we have
been disappointed by several aspects of the Government's Rural
Strategy. We argued that it is not really a strategy—it
is a set of organisational and institutional changes. The Government
has usefully re-presented and consolidated its priorities under
three main headings (Economic and Social Regeneration; Social
Justice for All; Enhancing the Value of Our Countryside). However,
the vision and objectives contained within those priorities are
vague, there is little sense of how the priorities inter-relate,
and the proposals for social and economic dimensions to rural
affairs policy and delivery remain poorly developed.
Institutional change is disruptive and can hamper
both practical delivery and policy development in the short term.
It is therefore vitally important that the benefits for policy
and delivery are clear and convincing. If the Rural Strategy gave
a clear vision, and instilled confidence that we are really moving
towards a much more effective system, then the gain would make
the pain worthwhile. But the Rural Strategy raises as many questions
at it answers, and does not yet inspire widespread confidence
that the new arrangements will represent a major step forward.
We then have to question whether the Modernising Rural Delivery
process is potentially generating a lot of pain for insufficient
real gain.
THE GAPS
IN THE
CURRENT RURAL
STRATEGY
Farming and Land Management versus Rural
Development: The Haskins Review was strongly focused on farming,
and was actually quite dismissive of "rural affairs".
Defra's Modernising Rural Delivery Programme has had to pick up
where Lord Haskins left off, and so inevitably has focused more
on the farming and land management side of Defra's work. That
is where the bulk of public financial support falls, and where
major challenges lie ahead as a result of the reforms to the Common
Agricultural Policy agreed last year. The treatment of farming
and agri-environment programmes in the Rural Strategy is more
rounded and coherent, but the rest of "rural affairs"
within the Strategy is piecemeal, fragmented, and lacking in clarity.
Two of the Government's key priorities mention the social dimension
to rural policy (Economic and Social Regeneration and Social Justice
for All). However, the social dimensions of rural delivery remain
very poorly developed in the proposals.
Centralisation and Decentralisation:
The Government's Rural Strategy and the Haskins Review before
it make great play of decentralisation. At first glance, this
is something to be welcomed. A key problem with agriculture, countryside
and rural development policy in England over the past 30 years
has been the over-emphasis on a single national framework, with
insufficient scope to do things differently in different local
and regional contexts. However, both the Haskins Review and the
Rural Strategy approach decentralisation from the perspective
of the centre. They have very little, if anything, to say about
the actual practice of delivery—the strengths and weakness
of different types of delivery models—for example. This
is really what a Modernising Delivery Review should be all about.
The Relationship between the Environment
Agency and the New Integrated Agency: This will be a big challenge,
and details remain vague in the Strategy. The justification for
leaving the Environment Agency out of Lord Haskins's Rural Delivery
Review was unconvincing. (In essence, the argument has been that
the Environment Agency deals with regulation, while the new Agency
delivers "incentive payments"). This is an over-simplification.
A basic principle of pollution control is that prevention is better
than cure, and the Environment Agency therefore needs to be much
more interested in what influences different land management practices,
and the role of policy measures and incentives systems. Similarly,
English Nature has a regulatory role with respect to Sites of
Special Scientific Interest and the European nature conservation
designations (Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection
Areas). The Integrated Agency is handicapped in not integrating
land and water use. There is also the risk of an institutionalised
divide between one organisation that finances environmental "public
goods" and another that has to regulate environmental "bads".
Tackling diffuse pollution from agriculture—an area of chronic
policy failure—will be a real test of whether the two can
effectively collaborate. Certainly, the Water Framework Directive,
which mandates a preventative approach to the management of rural
catchments, will necessitate increasing engagement of the Environment
Agency in the design of incentive schemes for environmentally-beneficial
land management.
OBJECTIVES OF
THE RURAL
STRATEGY
Overall, the Government's over-arching objectives
as set out in the strategy are poorly expressed and lack clarity.
Ideally, objectives should be "smart" (specific, measurable,
achievable, relevant, and time-limited).
In this section, we set out the Government's
over-arching objectives, and then propose our own suggestions.
Given the short time available, our suggestions are intended as
illustrations, but we nevertheless propose them as an improvement
upon those set out in the Rural Strategy. We would recommend that
the appropriate evidence base, and the specific quantitative targets
under each objective, should be agreed at the regional level (and
so could and should vary between regions). Identifying and agreeing
priority areas should also be determined at the regional level,
so replacing the nationally determined quartile of rural districts
under the Government's rural economic performance Public Service
Agreement target.
The Government's Objectives as set out in the
Rural Strategy 2004
Economic and Social Regeneration
— Building on the success of the majority
of rural areas to ensure they contribute fully to national, regional
and local economic prosperity.
— Tackling the structural economic
weaknesses and accompanying poor social conditions that exist
in a minority of rural areas.
Social Justice for All
— For the majority of rural England
which is fundamentally prosperous our social priorities are to
ensure fair access to public services and affordable housing.
— In both more and less prosperous
areas, to tackle social exclusion wherever it occurs.
Enhancing the Value of Our Countryside
— to continue to take action to protect
and enhance the rural and urban environments. Partly through the
new institutional arrangements and the devolutionary theme of
this strategy, we aim to promote a more integrated approach to
management of the natural environment. Also, through our strategies—such
as the Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food—we
support sustainable agricultural and other policies and practices
aimed at improving biodiversity and avoiding those actions that
cause environmental, economic and social damage; and
— to enhance the value and natural
beauty of the countryside for rural communities and for the benefit
of society in general—through making the countryside more
accessible to all and promoting sustainable tourism, to contribute
to the economic and social well-being of the nation.
Our Illustrative Alternative Objectives
Economic and Social Regeneration
In the rural priority areas[3]:
— to increase the number of new business
start ups and their survival rates
The average number of new business registrations
per annum in the period 2000-04 was X and the target for 2005-09
is Y.
The survival of new businesses beyond three
years in the period 2000-04 was X% and for 2005-09 the target
is Y%.
— to increase average business incomes
The average business income in 2000 was £X
and the target is to increase this to £Y by 2009.
— to increase the number of enquiries
made to the Business Link network for advice and the provision
and take up of training places offered by the network
The average number of enquiries per annum
to the Business Link network was X in the period 2000-04 and the
target is to increase this to Y in the period 2005-09.
The Business Link network offered X training
events/places in 2004 with an average attendance of X. The target
is to increase the training events/places to Y by 2009 and to
achieve an attendance rate of Y.
— to increase the number of broadband
business connections
The number of broadband business subscribers
in 2004 was X and the target is to increase this to Y by 2009.
Social Justice for All
In the rural priority areas:
— to increase the number of affordable
housing units created
The average number of affordable housing units
developed in the period 2000-04 was X and the target is to increase
this to Y units in the period 2005-09.
— to maintain the current level of
public transport provision connecting the market towns and key
rural settlements and boost patronage levels
In 2004 a total of X key settlements have
daily public transport services[4]
to their market towns and this figure will be maintained until
2009. Patronage levels were X and the target for 2009 is Y.
— to maintain a basic network of community
infrastructure
X first/middle schools
X GP surgeries
X village halls
X post offices
X telephone boxes
existed in the priority area and the target for
2009 will be to maintain this same level of provision.
— to increase the take up of schemes
which build community capacity and improve rural services and
infrastructure
In the period 2000-05 a total of £X was
allocated to X projects under relevant funding programmes.[5]
The target will be to increase to £Y and Y projects by
2009.
— to introduce a training programme
in rural community leadership
To devise a fully certificated training programme[6]
in civic leadership by 2006 and to set a target of Y people
receiving the qualification by 2009.
Enhancing the Value of Our Countryside
For the region as a whole:
— to increase the number of farm holdings
(and the area of land) which have been entered into agri-environment
schemes
In 2004 a total of X holdings were in receipt
of payments under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme covering
a total of X ha of land. The targets for 2009 are to have:
Y holdings in receipt of payments under the Entry
Level scheme (Y ha of land)
Y holdings in receipt of payments under the Higher
Level scheme (Y ha of land).
— to reduce the impact of diffuse agricultural
pollution on water quality
In 2004 the proportion of water bodies in
breach of the Water Framework Directive's standards for nitrate
and phosphorus was X%. The target for 2009 is to reduce this to
Y%.
— to increase the region's biodiversity
as represented by key species indicators
In 2004 the number of breeding pairs of indicator
farmland birds[7]
was X and the target levels for 2009 are Y.
— to ensure that the region's statutorily
protected wildlife habitats are maintained in good condition
In 2004 X % of the regions SSSI's/SACs/SPAs
were assessed as being in good condition and the target is to
increase this to Y% by 2009.
— to ensure that the region's network
of public rights of way remain open and suitably signposted and
way-marked for public use
In 2004 X% of the X km network of public rights
of way was assessed to be in satisfactory condition and the target
is to increase this to Y % by 2009.
— to increase the level of use of the
region's countryside recreation facilities
In 2000 visitor attendance figures for a representative
range of countryside sites were X. The target will be to increase
the attendance levels by Y% by the year 2009.
Crossing Cutting Institutional Issues: Taking
Rural Issues Seriously
(i) Rural Proofing
Under the current proposals, with different
bodies responsible for each of the three pillars of sustainable
development (social and community; economy; environment), and
with the major revisions to the role and structure of the Countryside
Agency, the functioning of rural proofing will become even more
important in delivering the Government's objectives for rural
areas, economies and communities.
(ii) Learning from Good Practice in Rural Development
We have argued that the Rural Strategy looks
disappointingly parochial. More than 80% of environmental legislation
is agreed at the European level. When agriculture and economic
regeneration are added in, much of our rural affairs is actually
best understood as part of a larger picture. There is much that
is distinctive about the English scene, in terms of the nature
of our institutions, and the types of public and political concerns,
but there is also much that is common in delivering rural development
across Europe. Useful lessons could be learned, for example, from
the Swedish system of local partnerships and local government
involvement in rural socio-economic development and the distinctive
Scandinavian emphasis on gender issues in rural development. Further
afield, the Japanese are developing distinctive approaches to
coping with an ageing society in rural areas, and are some years
ahead of us demographically in the ageing complexion of their
rural communities. When it was put to Defra civil servants that
greater effort should be placed on learning from rural delivery
practices from elsewhere the suggestion was dismissed outright.
The myopic national perspective of "we know best" is
misplaced in its self-confidence. The British countryside quangos
have long been used to commissioning studies of good practice
in rural environmental management and agri-environmental policy
from beyond the UK, but there has been less interest among Whitehall
departments such as Defra. Defra's "rural evidence base"
needs to be about much more than just the collection and compilation
of socio-economic statistics. It should also be about learning
from good practice in all aspects of rural development from beyond
the UK as well as within it.
AN INSTITUTIONAL
FRAMEWORK FOR
IMPROVING RURAL
DELIVERY
See Ev 12
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
We recognise that our proposed framework for
rural policy and delivery in the diagram is abstract and idealised,
and takes little account of the current institutional landscape.
We were asked to start with a blank sheet. Nevertheless, flowing
from this analysis, we would make the following specific recommendations
to the Committee for how the Government might best take forward
the Rural Strategy:
— The objectives in the Strategy are
vague and woolly and need to be replaced with "smart"
objectives that are meaningful and will help drive delivery on
the ground and so make an appreciable difference to businesses,
communities and environments in rural areas.
— This target-setting should be regionally-focused
to allow different regional priorities to be set, while allowing
government, politicians and the public the opportunity to judge
the performance of Government Departments and agencies in the
regions.
— The Forestry Commission and Environment
Agency should be included with English Nature and the Rural Development
Service into a single "Natural Resources Agency" with
a strongly regionalised structure.
— If this proposal were rejected, then
in default, the Government should ensure that the legislation
establishing the Integrated Agency includes a clear framework
for collaboration at the regional level between the Integrated
Agency and the Environment Agency.
— The Government must ensure that the
New Countryside Agency is sufficiently resourced to carry out
its policy advice, research, advocacy and rural proofing roles
properly and on an England-wide basis.
— Defra needs to improve its understanding
of the role of local authorities in local rural development (and
particularly in relation to social and economic issues) and to
establish and assert its credentials as a Government Department
with a legitimate interest in the work of local authorities.
— Defra, through the Rural Strategy,
should demonstrate a stronger commitment to learning from good
practice in rural development, including learning from other countries,
but also learning between local authorities, and to developing
mechanisms for disseminating good practice now that the Beacon
Councils scheme for supporting the rural economy is coming to
a close.
— The Government Regional Offices,
Regional Development Agencies and the "Natural Resources
Agency"/Integrated Agency at the regional level should be
made jointly responsible for Regional Rural Delivery Frameworks,
by means of a joint programme group to co-ordinate funding streams,
agree priorities and oversee the delivery of regional rural action
plans and programmes.
— The Regional Rural Affairs Forums
should be given an overseeing and scrutiny role in the delivery
of regional rural action plans. The Government should ensure that
Regional Rural Affairs Forums have sufficient administrative resources
adequately to carry out their role. Defra should commit to reviewing
the working arrangements for Regional Rural Affairs Forums after
two years, including canvassing opinion among rural stakeholders
in the English regions.
4 November 2004
3 These might be defined, for example, as the poorest
performing quartile of Districts (or Wards) within each region,
using either the Index of Multiple Deprivation or the economic
measures used to inform the Government's rural economy PSA target. Back
4
to be defined. Back
5
to be defined. Back
6
A partnership between an appropriate training institution and
the region's Community Councils is envisaged. Back
7
to be defined but consistent with national sustainability/quality
of life indicators and regional Biodiversity Action Plans. Back
|
