Rural England after Brexit – a moment of opportunity?

Posted on 18 December, 2017 by Fiona

Professor Mark Shucksmith OBE, Newcastle University

Brexit will have significant effects on rural areas of the UK, but the challenges and opportunities these bring for rural economies and societies have been little discussed beyond farming impacts. Leaving the EU will require new thinking in relation to agricultural and environmental policy but also for rural businesses, communities and services. What national policies for each of the devolved territories should replace these after Brexit? Could this offer an opportunity to introduce better rural policies, suited to 21^st Century rural potentials and challenges?

Rural policies in England, in particular, have been ripe for reform for many years[i]. Brexit could offer an unforeseen opportunity to rethink policy approaches. The Common Agricultural Policy will no longer apply, the Single Farm Payment and rural development funding such as LEADER will be swept away. Much is yet uncertain. Questions must be posed about what should replace the CAP, and much effort is being devoted to developing scenarios and alternative proposals for farm support and agri-environmental policy. But these questions should extend beyond agriculture, important though that is, because farming is now only a small part of the rural economy. And while most are no longer land-based, rural businesses make a substantial contribution to the national economy (19% of the country’s output comes from rural businesses). How then should rural businesses and rural communities be supported to give them the best chance of thriving and playing their full part in the future of the UK after we leave the EU? To help with this question let us consider two scenarios.

What could rural areas look like after Brexit?

2025 Scenario 1

Small businesses across rural England are struggling to survive as a result of what they describe as the ‘triple whammy’ of loss of markets due to export tariffs, skills shortages, and the closure of support schemes formerly funded by the EU’s regional policy and rural development policy. Farm families are hard hit, especially in upland areas such as our national parks and AONBs, by the loss of export markets and EU subsidies and by a reduction in opportunities to earn off-farm incomes. District, County and Unitary Councils lose funding as they are now reliant on Business Rates and Council Tax – services suffer. Environmental groups are concerned that land abandonment is damaging landscapes and habitats – tourism businesses suffer. Rural communities complain that the lengthy economic downturn and public spending cutbacks together with a failure to rural-proof national policies, are leading to losses of essential services, such as aspects of social care, health care, schools, leisure opportunities, shops and transport, with many voluntary and community organisations also having to close their services. Young people and older people requiring care face particular hardships. MPs representing rural constituencies are forming an all-party parliamentary group to promote the need for a coherent rural policy.

2025 Scenario 2

Small rural businesses are leading the economic recovery from the initial economic shock of leaving the EU. Aided by a national rural industrial strategy which recognises the economic potential of rural innovation and enterprise (including tourism and culture) and builds on lessons from the rural growth pilots, rural businesses are outperforming those in most cities. Farmers are adapting to the new trade deal with the EU and to new national support schemes which are better targeted toward provision of public goods such as landscape, wildlife, flood prevention and carbon sinks, and to diversifying income sources. Rural communities are thriving due to the growth in employment opportunities, renewed investment in affordable rural housing, and effective joint working between better-resourced and less financially challenged unitary, county, district and parish/town councils and community and voluntary organisations. These are all part of a new coherent rural strategy, agreed between central and local government and other key stakeholders, which is encouraging and enabling innovations in service and infrastructure provision, in planning and place-shaping, and in skills provision and business support. The OECD is sending a team of experts to study this successful approach so that other countries can learn from our experience.

What might be the elements of a successful, coherent rural strategy post-Brexit[ii]?

An asset-based, locally-led approach: In such an approach, place-based strategies are developed by local people collectively working with local councils as democratically elected, community leaders and deliverers of essential services but also involve external partners and networks. Primarily based on local assets and local knowledge, local groups also learn from one another through national and transnational networks, sharing ideas and know-how; and the necessary contribution of an enabling state in partnering, capacity-building and setting an enabling framework is also recognised[iii]. Without this, inequalities will grow between places – a recipe for a two-speed countryside.

A Rural Industrial Strategy: A crucial part of the enabling framework for rural entrepreneurial potential[iv] to be fulfilled, contributing to national productivity, growth and innovation, is an Industrial Strategy that encourages rural businesses and builds on learning from the rural growth networks. This does not just mean rural-proofing the recently proposed Industrial Strategy, vital though that is, but the adoption of an approach which has rural circumstances at its heart – a Rural Industrial Strategy. This would reflect the characteristics and contexts faced by rural businesses (typically microbusinesses, often home-based), addressing skills and training, business support, infrastructure, planning and finance – taking ideas both from the Rural Productivity Plan 2015 and from EU schemes such as the RDPE, LEADER and Objective 1 and 5b. Each LEP would be required to address rural issues through properly funded Rural Action Plans, informed by this Strategy.

A Rural Communities Strategy: Rural life opportunities and thriving communities are also core elements in such a vision. DEFRA Ministers have spoken of their determination to “keep our villages thriving and growing” and to ensure “people living in our market towns and villages have the same life opportunities as those who live in our cities” – something which is a statutory right in Norway[v] but is lacking in rural Britain[vi]. Rural citizens should expect a fair deal for rural communities – i.e. fair outcomes including access to services which meet needs; transparent decisions based on evidence; equal opportunities to participate in society; and a fair hearing and an effective voice in decision-making. The government’s allocation of resources to local authorities and other providers should reflect the additional costs of delivering services in rural areas and the extra time and cost for citizens of reaching distant, centralised services. This requires investment and innovation in the provision of affordable housing[vii], public spaces, connectivity, social care, health care and schools, among other essential services – often in partnership between public, private and VCSE sectors. There is much innovative practice to draw on[viii] but this is hampered by underfunding.

These two strategies could be underpinned by a Rural Social Innovation Fund, recapturing the creativity and capacity-building of early LEADER programmes, administered through local partnerships of councils and RCCs. The purpose would be to build capacity through animation, facilitation and knowledge exchange and to promote social innovation in service provision and social enterprise. Social innovation is increasingly recognised as a vital ingredient of dynamic economies and as a means of addressing the challenges of service provision in rural areas. In urban policy social innovation is well established in terms of a ‘quadruple helix’ of open cooperation and interaction between public authorities, private businesses, universities and citizens towards smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. International research[ix] suggests that rural regions may benefit even more from such models of open innovation. These would require a new social partnership operating transparently at multiple scales between public authorities, private businesses, universities and the citizens and voluntary and community organisations of rural areas.

Affordable rural housing: There is recognition at last of the urgency of addressing housing issues nationally, but in rural areas homes are even less affordable and there is much less social housing to rent[x], such that housing opportunities for even middle income households are very restricted. The Government’s affordable rural housing target should be reinstated with necessary budget and cross-subsidy provisions, alongside incentives to landowners to release exception sites, accompanied by powers for councils and housing associations to build small rural schemes exempt from the right to buy. The right to buy, mandatory or voluntary, should not apply in rural areas where unmet demand and need exceeds supply over the medium to long term.

Public goods and market failure: The British countryside contains iconic landscapes, precious habitats, flora and fauna, beloved cultural legacies – indeed a wealth of natural and cultural assets which depend on land management often without any market revenue. These public goods are highly valued by millions of people, as well as helping to support a low carbon future and green economy[xi]. Prince Charles, among others, has argued that the countryside is like a delicately woven tapestry, where land, farmers and communities are inextricably intertwined and may easily unravel. Their stewardship therefore requires targeted incentives and rewards for appropriate land management (within the constraints of WTO rules) alongside sustainable rural communities.

Coherent rural policy and implementation: Rural policy in each of the devolved nations necessarily reaches across the portfolios of many government departments, creating challenges of co-ordination, responsibility and accountability. None of the ten actions in the Treasury/DEFRA Rural Productivity Plan[xii] were DEFRA responsibilities, for example, although rural policy is scrutinised by the EFRA Select Committee which expressed its misgivings about the lack of co-ordination of rural policy in its report Rural Communities (2013). Since then the post of Rural Advocate and DEFRA’s Rural Community Policy Unit have been abolished, although a DEFRA Minister has the title of Rural Ambassador. Each of the devolved nations has developed their own approach to rural-proofing[xiii], but research suggests that a prerequisite for effective rural proofing is a coherent national rural policy which extends across all the departments of Government[xiv] .

The question remains of how best to ensure rural policy co-ordination:

Across central government departments (leadership; rural-proofing[xv])
Partnerships between local and central government (an England-wide ‘rural deal’?)
At local level (subsidiarity and partnership with VCSEs)

Above all a New Coherent Rural Vision and Strategy is essential, agreed between all departments of central government, local government and other key stakeholders. This should enable realisation of the latent potential of rural economies and a fair deal for rural communities. It would include coherent leadership from within central government alongside an England-wide “rural deal” which shares power, resources and responsibility with local government and communities through a framework of devolution and capacity building.

[i] http://www.ippr.org/files/uploadedFiles/ipprnorth/events/rural_agenda_-_exec_summary.pdf

[ii] See also CRE (2017) After Brexit: 10 key questions for rural policy. http://www.ncl.ac.uk/media/wwwnclacuk/centreforruraleconomy/files/CRE_10_Key_Questions_final.pdf

[iii] Shucksmith (2012) Future Directions in Rural Development, Carnegie UK Trust.

[iv] Phillipson et al (2017) Small rural firms in English regions: analysis of UK longitudinal business survey, CRE

[v] Shortall S and Alston M (2016) To Rural Proof or Not to Rural Proof? A Comparative Analysis, Politics and Policy, 44, 1, 35-55

[vi] Social Mobility in Great Britain, 2017. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/662744/State_of_the_Nation_2017_-_Social_Mobility_in_Great_Britain.pdf

[vii] Rural Housing Policy Review, 2015.

[viii] CRE (2015) Reimagining the rural: What’s missing in rural policy? CRE

[ix] Kolehmainen et el (2015); Nordberg 2013)

[x] ACRE Rural Housing Position Paper, 2017 http://www.acre.org.uk/cms/resources/policy-papers/housing-position-paper-final-a4-pages.pdf

[xi] Commission for Rural Communities (2010) High Ground, High Potential, CRC.

[xii] HM Treasury/DEFRA Rural Productivity Plan, 2015. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/454866/10-point-plan-rural-productivity-pb14335.pdf

[xiii] Shortall (2017) Rural-proofing: magic bullet or rural vote catcher? Newcastle University Institute for Social Renewal https://blogs.ncl.ac.uk/nisr/rural-proofing-magic-bullet-or-rural-vote-catcher/

[xiv] Shortall S and Alston M (2016) To Rural Proof or Not to Rural Proof? A Comparative Analysis, Politics and Policy, 44, 1, 35-55

[xv] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rural-proofing

A New Era for Towns?

Posted on 14 September, 2017 by Fiona

Reposted from Carnegie UK Trust

Peter Hetherington chaired the joint Carnegie UK Trust and Newcastle University Institute for Social Renewal event in North Shields on 11 July 2017, the discussions of which are summarised below. Peter is past chair of the TCPA, was a member of the government’s urban sounding board and a board member of the former Academy for Sustainable Communities. He is also a former regional affairs editor of The Guardian.

I grew up, and started work, in a smallish city. It was surrounded by a clutch of even smaller towns. What’s surprising is that, throughout my formative years – the 1960s into the early 70s – they were (in the case of the city) largely self-governing, a ‘county borough’ in the officialise of the time.

Throughout over half of the last century, a small city was a big democratic player – for a period providing electricity, gas, water, public transport and, of course, education and social care. These institutions civilised Britain long before a national government developed any social agenda. And that went for small towns too. Just look around England, Scotland and Wales and you’ll still see remnants of truly local democracy: town halls, often sadly neglected and partly abandoned, that once provided a focus of local action and service delivery. Think royal burghs (in the case of Scotland) and town councils in England (which still sometimes exist as glorified parish councils).

But from the 1970s onwards, through rounds of local government ‘reorganisation’, these small councils were swallowed up by larger authorities. Local identity – that essential element of pride, belonging, a sense of place – went out of the stained glass windows which sometimes adorned these fine sandstone buildings. As countless citizens will attest – me included – bigger hasn’t always been better.

So what to do? If we can’t turn back the clock, we can at least – as Carnegie UK Trust’s ‘Time for Towns’ project emphasises – consider how towns might have a greater say over decision making as part of a continuing policy debate surrounding community empowerment and ‘devolution’. In English terms, that latter noun briefly meant devolving some power to five ‘city regions’, such as Greater Manchester, in mayoral elections earlier this year. The initiative was meant to be rolled out elsewhere. But it’s stalled. The government seems to have gone cool on the idea.

In its limited form, however, this initiative did tell us something about a national policy mindset which sees big cities, and surrounding conurbations, as the drivers of a regional economy – in much the same way as London is seen as a motor of the national economy.

It’s time to challenge these assumptions. As Carnegie UK Trust’s recent ‘Turnaround Towns’ report emphasises, millions of us don’t live in big cities but, rather, in small and medium-sized towns – some thriving, some coasting, many struggling.

I was lucky enough to chair a joint Carnegie UK Trust and Newcastle University Institute for Social Renewal seminar in North Shields in July designed to address the turnaround issue, with case studies from eight places: the USA to Australia, New Zealand, Germany and Finland.

North Shields? Still partly a fishing port, it’s at the mouth of the River Tyne, and now – courtesy of local government reorganisation in 1973 – forms part of the North Tyneside metropolitan borough, which also embraces the neighbouring coastal towns of Tynemouth and Whitley Bay. North Tyneside, in many ways, is typical of much of Britain: poverty and plenty cheek-by-jowl. North Shields, perhaps seen as a poor economic relation, has a spectacular quayside, trendy bars, up-market flats and a poorer housing estate which has had its troubles in the past.

The mayor of North Tyneside, Norma Redfern, a retired primary head teacher, who opened the event, spoke passionately about the importance of community, belonging and partnership in the quest of ‘turning towns around’. Above all, she said, councils must put residents first. This was no synthetic comment. As the only elected executive mayor in the Tyne and Wear conurbation, she heads an excellent authority which boasts high-ranking schools and considerable ambition, often directed to turning round its most challenging areas.

As the past chair of the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), Britain’s oldest housing and planning charity, I am helping lead a project which specifically addresses those forgotten parts of England – for instance, former industrial towns and villages – which time, and government, seems to have forgotten.

In England particularly, there’s a policy vacuum, an asymmetric system which places, and sometimes rewards, big cities and conurbations, while forgetting outlying areas which contain the bulk of the country’s population. The tide has to turn. Let’s cooperate in driving forward a common agenda. A new era for towns? Why not?

Peter Hetherington

Reposted with kind permission from Carnegie UK Trust

Ethiopian Connections: Community Engagement through Creative Arts

Posted on 23 May, 2017 by Fiona

Dr Peter Kellett is an architect and social anthropologist and Senior Lecturer in the School of Architecture Planning and Landscape. In 2013 he went to Ethiopia as a VSO volunteer working as Visiting Professor at Addis Ababa University on a capacity building programme. He returned in 2015 to continue work on collaborative research projects with his Ethiopian colleagues. Whilst in the country he collected numerous objects and images which form the basis of a series of exhibitions. Here he writes about the current exhibition in Bath which is supported by a grant from the Newcastle Institute of Social Renewal.

Fairfield House is a well-proportioned, Italianate mid-nineteenth century house on the outskirts of the genteel and historic city of Bath – and a long way from Africa. However for 5 years (1936-1941) it was the home of the Ethiopian Emperor, King of Kings, Conquering Lion of Judah, His Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie I. Ethiopia was the only country in Africa country not to be colonised by the European powers and remained a proudly independent state – until Mussolini’s troops invaded in 1935. Haile Selassie, his family and his court managed to escape into exile – and ended up in Fairfield House. On his return to Ethiopia he gifted the house to the city of Bath, and it is now a multi-cultural centre and the base of numerous black and ethnic minority groups, including Ethiopian, African-Caribbean and Rastafari communities in the South West.

The window of Haile Selassie’s former bedroom is transformed into the Ethiopian flag assembled from hundreds of children’s sandals.

Given its rich history and ongoing links with Africa, Fairfield House is the perfect place for this exhibition which highlights processes of rapid socio-economic change and modernization in Ethiopia. Many aspects of these changes can be observed in the ordinary objects which people use in their everyday lives and which are visible and tangible manifestations of the move from handmade, locally-sourced, natural materials – towards machine-made, high energy, imported materials. These changes are impacting on how people live and work, as well as on the values which underpin the society.

The exhibition examines these changes through a focus on material culture. Objects are good for telling stories and focusing ideas. Drawing on contemporary art techniques, I created a series of assemblages of objects which present stories of celebration, optimism and creativity alongside development dilemmas and challenges. The installations are complemented by colourful video images on large monitors which show the objects in context. The key themes are food security, water, childhood, maternal health, language and religious traditions.

The exhibition commenced in March with a wonderful opening evening which drew people from numerous community, charity and religious groups from the South West. In addition to a few speeches, we enjoyed music played by an Ethiopian cellist and drank cups of traditional Ethiopian coffee poured from elegant ceramic coffee pots and listened to inspirational Rastafarian poetry.

Last weekend I returned to Fairfield as the house and exhibition were included in the Bath Newbridge Arts Trail. Over two days close to 150 people from many walks of life came to see the exhibition – and it was encouraging to see visitors attracted and curious about the vibrant displays which in turn prompted discussions and an interest in learning more about the issues presented.

On Saturday evening the house reverberated with the hypnotic rhythms of Rastafari drumming and chanting. The Rastafari meet regularly in Fairfield to celebrate the Sabbath and this was a special occasion to mark the anniversary of Haile Selassie’s triumphant return to Addis Ababa in May 1941 – to continue ruling as the last monarch of the 3,000 year old Solomonic dynasty which began with the union of King Solomon of Israel and the Queen of Sheba (ancient Ethiopia and Yemen). The Rastafari take their name from Haile Selassie’s pre-coronation name of Ras (Prince) Tafari, and for them he is much more than a king – he is regarded as God (Jah) and the messiah who came to liberate black people throughout the world. For them to spend time in his former house is highly significant.

The exhibition provides a focus for related workshops and participatory events to engage wider audiences. Starting with a lively session with the black and ethnic minority senior citizen group which meets regularly in Fairfield, we are now organising activities with the local community as well as visits of local schoolchildren and African refugees. These events will encourage creative activities around development themes with the aim of fostering understanding and dialogue between different social and ethnic groups and thereby contribute to community cohesion and social renewal.

Dr Peter Kellett

Salmon fishing on the Tweed: reflecting on a process of citizen story-telling

Posted on 27 April, 2017 by Fiona

Two years ago Newcastle University Institute of Social Renewal sponsored a series of citizen-led story-telling events in the North East border town of Berwick upon Tweed. Our ‘listening project’ coincided with the town celebrating 900 years of history: it focussed on the traditional livelihood of ‘net and coble’ salmon fishing and how it contributed to a local sense of identity and belonging.

Local citizens, whose voices are rarely heard in major decision-making, were asked to share their personal impressions of this once thriving local industry. At the time it was feared that the last commercial fishing station would remain closed forever. As well as collecting personal impressions we wanted to stimulate a wider-ranging conversation about the potential to revive and sustain net fishing activities on the Tweed. Since the industry contracted rapidly in the 1980s, Berwick has lost net fishing jobs and income and the further risk is of losing ‘intangible heritage’ associated with net fishing traditions. We heard different views about what is valued, such as a living river, and how to keep knowledge alive that is embodied and rarely written down.

From the stories we gathered for a final souvenir publication we found a clear ambition in Berwick to preserve an active, fully functioning fishery, rather than to celebrate deep rooted fishing heritage only as a chapter of Berwick’s past. This ambition echoes a growing trend for the English regions and small towns in particular that seek to retain artisan products and keep craft skills alive. This is evident in Slow Food and Cittaslow quality of life initiatives that help to define Berwick through popular food, drink, civic arts and heritage festivals.

Engagement, impact and renewal

Mid-way through listening to local concerns we published a blog in July 2015. At the end we pondered the impact that public dialogue might have in reviving the last remaining fishing stations; one at Paxton (catching and releasing fish for scientific purposes only) and one at Gardo (perched alongside the iconic 17^th century Old Bridge at the very heart of Berwick). Back then it was difficult to imagine what a positive impact of social renewal might bring about. So it is hugely satisfying today to be standing on the Old Bridge with a crowd of visitors watching the net fishing at Gardo (these images taken 21^st April 2017). Visitors have always gathered in large numbers to watch the fishing by net from a wooden coble – and now they can do so again.

Commercial fishing continues on a modest scale due to the inspirational commitment of Michael Hindhaugh, who set up the River Tweed Wild Salmon Company as a social enterprise in 2015, and groups of volunteers, such as the Berwick Town Team, eager to ensure the continuation of the traditional net and coble fishing method. The River Tweed Wild Salmon Company makes available the only legal way to purchase Tweed wild salmon as it is illegal to sell rod-caught salmon. The Company also caters for corporate team-building and groups of family and friends to participate in the authentic net fishing experience. Michael is the first to acknowledge that the Company can never operate as a conventional business, based on salmon sales alone:

“I’d not make it on The Apprentice! We just about broke even last year. As a social enterprise it’s not about making a living but keeping the practice alive here on the Tweed. My team are all retired fishermen, plus a couple of students taking on seasonal work. The B&B businesses really appreciate us fishing, even on a short season, because it’s a huge spectacle that never fails to draw a crowd”.

This resonates with arguments for agricultural subsidies in some rural economies which are not competitive when priced purely on a single product. A wider view of rural services would take account of the contribution artisan fishing makes to a locally distinct landscape and quality of life.

Citizen-led archives

Many people who came along to our story-telling events in 2015 brought with them family photographs, news cuttings, artefacts and documents to show their personal connections to the netting industry. These citizen-led archives continue to grow as part of a continuing conversation on the significance of net fishing and the river to Berwick. This is evident in a recent Berwick Town Team exhibition which attracted close to one thousand visitors over a fortnight. Visitors were invited to add comments and names to the many photographs assembled, to increase the richness of the local salmon fishing story.

Slow qualities of life

Watching the net fishing up close it’s easy to be drawn into its rhythmic qualities: the coble rowed out, paying out the net in a semi-circular ‘shot’, outlined by floats, encircling any passing fish in the decreasing draw of the net, the coble rowed back to land and the net winched in. These ‘slow’ qualities of life have widespread appeal, as evident in the success of ‘slow TV’ and ‘slow radio’ broadcasting leisurely canal journeys, glassblowing and sounds of the summer. Why not net fishing? Nothing much happens but the tempo is therapeutic, focusing in on what appears to matter, not, ironically, whether a fish is caught rather something altogether more pastoral. It is about giving rural activities the time that they take, valuing particular skills rather than only caring about the final product. These observations and the impact our project has had links to ongoing research advancing new paradigms of sustainable de-growth.

Dr Helen Jarvis is a reader in social geography from Newcastle University School of Geography, Politics and Sociology. Working jointly with Tessa Holland, doctoral candidate, the project “Salmon Fishing on the Tweed” was awarded a Social Renewal grant in Spring 2015.

Newcastle City Futures: Thinking Canny for the Toon

Posted on 4 April, 2017 by Fiona

Newcastle City Futures is the story of how one great city is rethinking the way we rebuild local democracy and public trust to manage future change.

Newcastle City Futures (NCF), led by Newcastle University, was formed in 2014 with the opening of a three-week long pop-up exhibition on Newcastle past, present and future at the Guildhall on the Quayside that attracted 2400 visitors and led to a call to establish a place where people could create their own ideas for the future of Tyneside. In 2015 NCF published the Newcastle City Futures 2065 research report to look at long-term trends and create an intelligence base of what’s happening in the city.

Since May 2016, Newcastle City Futures has partnered 70 organisations, welcomed 35 businesses, facilitated 30 new innovative projects across the city, generated £1.5m to fund partner projects and submitted £15m in research bids, organised mashups with 150 people, had over 100 individual meetings, engaged 600 schoolchildren in digital ideas, received feedback from 3000 citizens, filmed 10 videos, won 3 prestigious research awards, changed the governance processes of 2 local authorities, showcased our work to 18 overseas countries and 13 UK Cities, participated in 20 high profile events, and featured in 20 media reports. And although these are unique achievements in a short space of time, they do not benefit the university directly.

The question most people ask then is, why on earth does the university get involved?What does the university get out of it? NCF is one of five pilot initiatives funded by the UK Research Councils and Innovate UK to encourage higher education to ‘give something back’ to the places in which the universities are located, by brokering new collaborations, linking research to practice, and encouraging citizens and businesses to talk to each other. In our case, we cover both Newcastle and Gateshead.

Essentially we are an ideas factory, generating unique partnerships to shape innovative solutions. Among the 30 projects developed over the last 12 months are: Metro Futures, creating a digital engagement platform to allow the public to design the new fleet of metro trains to achieve inclusive mobility; Future Homes, to create digitally enabled sustainable homes for an ageing society; the application of blue and green infrastructure and digital retailing in city centre shopping areas; the Big Draw, encouraging children to design their own future city; and a proposal to regenerate riverside walks and parks to encourage health and wellbeing.

Aspirations are raised by the brokerage, and the idea is always paramount, first and foremost, not a funding application. That means the innovation and partnership can endure around the idea even if funding is uncertain to deliver the project. But the continual generation of ideas borne from these collaborations also explains why bigger corporate players are now eager to be involved – NCF has moved from 22 partners in June 2016 to over 70 now; it’s a growing story.

Digital and citizen engagement are cross cutting themes in every single project but we avoid saying we are a ‘smart city’; we are smart and we are socially inclusive, so let’s say we are ‘canny’. Each project has to have reps from public, private, voluntary and academic sectors involved. Each project links needs to business opportunities through a proof of concept approach, underpinned by the university’s R&D. And each project in its own way supports the delivery of public services in new and dynamic ways, while reinvigorating local democracy in more direct and transparent approaches.

NCF has led to the establishment of a new governance process in Newcastle City Council with the formation of the City Futures Development Group, a special purpose local authority committee that brings researchers and policy makers together to discuss the long term needs of the City.

Our work has also been endorsed four times by government in the Future of Cities foresight report (May 2016), in the Future Cities Catapult digital and planning reports (December 2016 and March 2017), and in the House of Lords Built Environment Select Committee report (February 2016), while the Federation of Small Businesses article in the Chronicle (January 2017) was a good endorsement for us by the business community. Our work also featured in an Innovate UK blog (July 2016).

We have been featured in 20 regional newspaper reports on urban change in the city using archival imagery and quotations. We were featured prominently in South East Asia media outlets in 2015-16, with a Channel News Asia Perspectives programme and accompanying broad sheet coverage.

We have the backing of major companies like IBM (who awarded NCF a small grant) and we have signed an MoU with Engie on future Connected Cities; we also have Siemens, Buro Happold, Arup, Northumbrian Water and BT Strategy on board.

Nationally we are part of the RCUK Urban Living Partnership Network of five cities and we have an international approach with university partners in two distinct networks that we also lead: the Foresight Future of Cities International Research Network, and the European Accomplissh Network, covering 16 countries combined to date.

The Combined Authority have now asked us to support their transport strategy preparation, including ideas for metro expansion and a freight distribution centre for Tyneside; this follows our involvement in the NE LEP new economic strategy and the city council’s Working City document.

We have also been given public platforms nationally and in the region through the Daily Telegraph Smart Cities event (2016), the Bristol Festival of the Future City (2017), the Pint of Science Festival (2017), Freedom City (2017), and we hope to play a prominent role in the Great Exhibition of the North (2018).

As our work goes forward, I am quite happy describing NCF as a mechanism of convenience: it’s not the politicians’ or the university’s, it’s there for everyone in the city to use and to get involved with.

We live in challenging times but we can still have big plans to make a difference to the place and its citizens.

If all we do is raise ambitions, get people taking about the city they love, and demonstrate the potential of this great place, we achieved some modest outcomes. But for a city like The Toon, I know that that’s just not going to be enough. We must engage, inspire and Innovate.

Professor Mark Tewdwr-Jones

Director, Newcastle City Futures, Newcastle University.

21st Century Rural Development – learning from Scotland

Posted on 16 November, 2016 by Fiona

Professor Mark Shucksmith OBE’s Closing Keynote Speech at Scottish Rural Parliament 2016

What does successful, community-led rural development look like in the globalised, networked world of the 21^st Century? This question faces rural communities and governments I meet around the world and I often respond with the suggestion that they look to learn from Scotland.

In the 1960s, in the early days of the Highlands & Islands Development Board (HIDB), the model of growth centres was in vogue – an aluminium smelter here, a pulp mill or a nuclear power station there, all part of a plan devised and imposed top-down. The strategy failed, largely because control lay far away, with too little input from those who lived in and knew these areas. Later, as a reaction to such failures, this was superseded in many countries by a model of “bottom-up” rural development (development from within), based on local assets, local knowledge and local action. The EU LEADER programme was seen as emblematic of such an approach, and this was more successful. However there were a number of issues even with the “bottom-up” approach.

One issue was that it proved hard to find examples of truly bottom-up development: usually initiatives, even if locally led, relied on external funding or networks. LEADER areas and groups, for example, were selected and approved by governments and disbursed EU funding according to EU budgetary rules and strategies in Brussels-approved business plans. Moreover they learned from one another through national and transnational networks, sharing external ideas and know-how.

Another problem was that inequality was built in, and in two respects. Localities whose capacity to act was greater, or where capacity had been built through earlier interventions, were better able to mobilise and capture further funding leading to a very uneven geography of development. And within localities it tended to be those already with capital and power who captured the lion’s share of the available funding – especially when these were in the form of capital grants. Then, as the world moved into an era of neoliberalism and rolling back of the state, it was all too easy for bottom-up development models to become ‘self-help’ remedies which allowed the state to withdraw.

Taking these issues on board, and also reflecting the transition to the ‘network society’ of the 21^st Century, a more helpful model is now that of “networked rural development.” In this approach, place-based strategies are led by local people but are acknowledged to involve external partners too. Moreover this approach draws not only on local assets and local knowledge but also makes use of external assets and knowledge to augment what is available locally. Most notably this recognises the necessary contribution of an enabling state (rather than an absent state leaving it to self-help), as well as the contributions of links with other rural communities, activists and researchers.

Scotland already exemplifies this approach. Take community land ownership, as one example, led and controlled by local communities of place, but helped and enabled by the state through land reform legislation, a community land fund and the community land unit, as well as activists and supporters with useful skills and contacts, and of course the mutual support and shared learning now offered through Community Land Scotland.

The Scottish Rural Parliament also exemplifies this approach. The idea came through learning from the experience of other countries (notably Sweden), facilitated by externally-funded studies and disseminated through various networks. Now the SRP functions at one level as a means for the people of rural Scotland to collectively articulate and present their manifesto to government and other authorities, calling for the state to play its part in enabling a better future for all parts of rural Scotland. At the same time, the SRP is a network for sharing and celebrating ideas and experience, which local people can then take back to their own communities to consider and to weave into their own strategies and actions.

Around the world many people in rural areas are interested in these ideas and Scottish experiences of networked rural development, and they draw strength and inspiration from them. But this is more than bottom-up rural development or self-help. A successful approach requires an enabling state, not an absent state leaving each community to sink or swim in a neoliberal world which would inevitably lead to widening inequalities and a two-speed countryside. Scotland is fortunate in having had successive governments which recognise that they must play their part. In addition this approach requires rural communities to think not only of the assets and knowledge within their locality and of building their capacity to mobilise for action; they must also consider their network resources, and how these can be used to draw in assets and knowledge from elsewhere and from one another as they seek to thrive in the networked world on the 21^st Century.

These lessons are especially important during the turbulent times ahead. In fashioning future rural policies outside the EU, both farming interests and environmental interests have powerful and effective lobbying capabilities which could easily crowd out rural development and rural community interests – along with many of the elements of the rural manifesto just agreed by the Scottish Rural Parliament. It is vital that the rural communities’ voices are also heard and that post-Brexit policies are informed by these lessons from Scottish experiences of rural development.

Professor Mark Shucksmith OBE is Director of the Newcastle University Institute for Social Renewal. He was formerly Co-Director of the Arkleton Centre for Rural Development Research at Aberdeen University. The ideas in this blog are elaborated in his report for the Carnegie UK Trust, Future Directions in Rural Development. http://www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk/publications/future-directions-in-rural-development-full-report/

You can also watch a video recording of Mark’s speech at the Scottish Rural Parliament.

The future of rural Europe?

Posted on 12 November, 2015 by Fiona

Have you ever wanted to be a Member of Parliament: no, me neither! But last week I participated in the second European Rural Parliament, in Schärding, Austria, as one of five delegates from rural England. This was very different to how we usually imagine a Parliament. At its heart is intended to be the voice of rural people, asserting the need for partnership between civil society and governments in addressing the big societal challenges. This innovative, and inspiring, process may be of interest for social movements and social renewal in many spheres – not just the rural.

The idea originated in the Nordic countries, and the Swedish experience in particular caught the imagination of other countries, initially Estonia and Hungary and then many more who now hold rural parliaments – from Scotland, Netherlands and USA to Lithuania, Slovenia and Cyprus. This European Rural Parliament was held under the auspices of the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, and co-funded by the European Commission through the Europe for Citizens programme. It was jointly initiated by three pan-European rural networks, ERCA, PREPAE and ELARD.

This European Rural Parliament process began with national campaigns in 36 European countries, with each campaign focused on organising an “upward cascade of ideas” which “truly draws upon the hopes and concerns of rural people”. These campaigns varied greatly in depth and detail, according to the national context: for example, Scotland relayed the main conclusions from last year’s Scottish Rural Parliament, while Portugal’s national rural network Minha Terra organised more than 170 local or regional events with nearly 4000 participants. These ideas from the grassroots were synthesised at national level, for use in national campaigning, and then at European level last week, leading to the agreement and affirmation of a European Rural Manifesto. The 250 delegates to the European Rural Parliament from all the countries involved in the cascade of ideas drew on the contents of the national reports during two intensive days of workshops and plenary meetings, distilling their contents and then debating line by line, finalising and adopting the European Rural Manifesto. We also endorsed the broad contents of a book “All Europe Shall Live – the voice of rural people”, which synthesises the national reports and draws out the main issues.

The generous spirit in which all these discussions and debates took place was impressive and inspiring, reflecting but also generating mutual respect, energy and enthusiasm. The process reflected the diversity of rural Europe but also asserted common values and a shared vision. The Manifesto calls upon the EU and national governments for full recognition of the right of rural communities to a quality of life, standard of living and voice equal to that of urban populations.

“Our vision for the future of rural Europe is of vibrant, inclusive and sustainable rural communities, supported by diversified rural economies and by effective stewardship of high-quality environment and cultural heritage. We believe that rural communities, modelled on that vision, can be major long-term contributors to a prosperous, peaceful, just and equitable Europe, and to a sustainable global society. The pursuit of our vision demands in every country a refreshed and equitable partnership between people and governments. We, the rural people and organisations, know that we have a responsibility to give leadership and to act towards our own collective well-being. But we also fairly demand that governments at all levels, including the European institutions, work to make this crucial partnership effective.”

The Manifesto goes on to address the social, economic, political and environmental challenges facing rural Europe while also emphasising the potential contribution rural areas and people can make to European and national as well as local and regional goals, if supported by governments and international institutions. Importantly it asserted the rights of people, whoever they are and wherever they live, and the shared responsibility of governments and civil society to promote human flourishing in rural and urban areas alike.

Both the Rural Manifesto and the report, All Europe Shall Live – the voice of rural people, can be found on the European Rural Parliament website, along with much more information.

Professor Mark Shucksmith, Director of Newcastle Institute for Social Renewal

Reducing inequality…in national wealth

Posted on 24 July, 2015 by Jenny

The next in the blog series from Newcastle University Societal Challenge Theme Institutes giving recommendations for targets and indicators of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, is from Dr Andrew Walton, Lecturer in Political Philosophy in School of Geography, Politics and Sociology.

In the current proposal for the Sustainable Development Goals, Goal 10 states the aim to ‘reduce inequality within and among countries’. For many (good) reasons, much articulation of this goal has focused on its first component – reducing inequality between co-citizens within countries. But it is important also to consider what should be the appropriate target for the second component. What should be our aim and measure in reducing inequality amongst countries? My suggestion is to lessen the gap in per capita national wealth – the value of each country’s financial and physical assets.

Measures of (in)equality

The basic idea of measuring (in)equality involves comparing the circumstances of certain actors. Thus, any conceptualisation of equality must specify an answer to two questions:

Which actor should be compared?
What aspect(s) of their circumstances should be compared?

There are different ways to conceptualise and measure (in)equality historically [1]:

Model	Actor	Aspect(s)
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)	Countries	Final value of goods & services produced within nations’ borders
GDP/capita	‘Average’ citizen (country ÷ population)	Final value of goods & services produced within nations’ borders
Income	Persons or households	Disposable income / expenditure
Wealth	Persons or households	Assets, including financial holdings and physical goods, such as real estate

Perhaps obviously, these models ask us to think about (in)equality in rather different ways. For example, on current figures using GDP suggests that China is better-off than Switzerland, whereas GDP/capita suggests the opposite [2]. Similarly, both GDP and GDP/capita suggest that Brazil is a relatively well-off country, but measuring income and wealth highlight that it is home to individuals who are worse-off than almost the entire populations of similarly well-off countries [3].

What these differences highlight is that asking which model we should use to measure (in)equality pushes us to explore deeper philosophical questions about our underlying reasons for being concerned with (in)equality, and to find a measure that is tailored to these concerns. My suggestion here is that some of our underlying concerns point in the direction of exploring how countries compare in per capita wealth [4].

Why compare countries and why compare them per capita?

For many people it will seem obvious that there is something important about whether their country is well-off. It is sometimes thought important for ensuring that their country is respected by others and very commonly because it has a significant impact on whether its citizens have comfortable lives.

Some argue that comparing national circumstances is a mistake. They suggest that, ultimately, it is only the welfare of people that matters and, as noted above, cross-country comparisons can hide that some individuals within countries are badly-off. Advocates of this view might argue that Goal 10 should be collapsed into one goal: measuring (in)equality amongst individuals worldwide.

We should reject the conclusions of this argument. Because the SDGs also consider (in)equality within countries and have other goals targeting aspects of individual welfare, they will not overlook the worry mentioned above. Meanwhile, because one thing that benefits people’s welfare is to participate in the collective decisions and development of their nation, even this individual-centred view can acknowledge the importance of a world involving country groupings and, thus, the additional relevance of cross-country comparisons.

However, we should accept the point that countries are, in essence, valuable only insofar as they benefit their populations and our comparisons between them should reflect this concern. It is for this reason that our cross-country comparison should focus on a per capita measure, which looks at how some aspect of a country’s circumstance relates to its people.

Why compare wealth?

Some possible ways we could make per capita inter-country comparisons would be the following:

Model	Actor	Aspect(s)
GDP/capita	‘Average’ citizen	Final value of goods & services produced within nation’s borders
Wealth/capita	‘Average’ citizen	Assets, including currency, stock, bond holdings and physical goods, such as land, natural resources, and rights to global commons
Capabilities	‘Average’ citizen	Human development indicators, such as life expectancy, education, income

A reasonable case could be made that reducing inequality between countries in any of these respects would be a worthwhile target. Nevertheless, I proposed at the beginning of this post that the goal should be to focus on wealth/capita. Two related points support this view.

First, neither GDP/capita nor capabilities takes full account of the aspects of a country’s circumstance that affects the welfare of its population. To take two clear examples, currency reserves and natural resources, which are considered in wealth/capita, but not these other measures, both allow a country to provide its population with economic security and future consumption [5].

Second, many of the assets that countries hold are a matter of luck. For example, no country did anything to entitle it to the oil or gold that lies within its borders and, indeed, much of their economic wealth arises from the fortunes of the market.

In cases where there is a good that many actors desire and which no actor is entitled automatically to own, it seems sensible to distribute that good equally. If Isaac and I are sat beneath a tree feeling hungry when an apple falls on his head, it seems reasonable for us to share it. Similarly, insofar as it is valuable for countries to hold financial and physical assets and their current holdings have arisen from good fortune, there is a reason to aim for equalising their shares.

Moving towards international equality

A more fully fledged case for measuring inter-country (in)equality in terms of per capita national wealth is that achieving parity in this regard can, under certain conditions, represent a truly idealistic aim. There is a moral argument that a distribution of assets is fair if it mirrors what each relevant actor would have bought with equal purchasing power in the context of all goods being priced at a market-clearing equilibrium [6]. Such a distribution, in the international context, would entail equality in per capita national wealth and it is fair because it reflects the equality of all parties in their access to these goods and allows them to shape their holdings according to what they believe is worth having.

Realising this aim is perhaps a more long-term project than for the framework of the SDGs. Nevertheless, it helps show the value of building our understanding of (in)equality in national wealth and beginning to reduce it, whilst casting light on some important steps for moving towards this goal:

Pursue (the second component of) Goal 10 by:

Establishing a national wealth index and collect data on countries’ standings.
Setting a target of reducing inequality in per capita holdings.

Connect these targets and their longer-term aim to:

Adding impetus to Goal 16.7 of ensuring responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making, in order for countries’ choices about asset holdings to reflect the collective interests of their people.
Helping articulate Goals 17.10-17.12 on shaping international trade towards an equal and equilibrated market.

Dr Andrew Walton is lecturer in political philosophy at Newcastle University. His main research interests are in global justice, liberal-egalitarian and socialist thought and questions of justice in public policy.

[1] The essential ideas used to construct this table are taken from Milanovic, B., Worlds Apart: Measuring International and Global Inequality (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005)

[2] These figures can be found via UN, ‘National Accounts Main Aggregates Database’, available at http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/selbasicFast.asp [Accessed 17^th June 2015].

[3] See, for example, Credit Suisse, ‘Global Wealth Report 2014’, available at https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=60931FDE-A2D2-F568-B041B58C5EA591A4 [Accessed 17^th June 2015].

[4] This suggestion is elaborated in more detail in Walton, A., ‘On the Currency of International Equality’, forthcoming.

[5] It is worth noting that Capabilities also seems to point towards important aspects of human welfare. However, many other SDGs will pursue these kinds of concerns anyway, leaving space for the second part of Goal 10 to speak to the concerns I mention here.

[6] This view is most commonly associated with Dworkin, R., Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000).

Labour’s future lies in co-operation and solidarity, not managerialism and party politics

Posted on 23 July, 2015 by Jenny

David Webb is a Lecturer in Town Planning at Newcastle University. His research has explored the governing principles behind urban management, in particular New Labour’s ‘top down’ housing market renewal programme. More recently, his interests lie in co-operative influences on the heritage conservation movement and the cultural heritage of co-operation.

This May’s election news was crushing for the Labour Party and the left. And yet the political promise of the leadership contenders looks uninspiring. In choosing its next leader, to inspire a comeback, Labour faces a choice between a left wing stalwart ready to stick to their principles and debunk the myth that Britain’s economic fortunes were caused by state ‘profligacy’ or a return to the Blairite vision of a socially tempered devotion to market governance. But there is another way, perhaps the only route available to Labour if it wishes to exploit the opportunities created by a politically fractured and polarised UK: cooperation and solidarity.

Working together

The Guardian’s election round-up offered a shrewd analysis of the relationship between the SNP’s landslide and the appeal of Labour to swing voters in the south. The SNP’s rise may not, it seems, have just been exploited by the Conservatives and the Murdoch press. It could actually have been actively encouraged as part of a deliberate electoral strategy. This amounts to a divide and rule approach aimed at undermining the solidarity of those opposed to the Tory party alliance of landed interests and financiers. But political pluralism can be used to strengthen solidarity as well as break it. The roots of solidarity do not lie in us all thinking the same, but in strengthening core values through mutual working while allowing freedom and diversity to flourish.

Co-operative working could be the key to realising strength from political diversity. As Johnston Birchall argued in the 1980s, in his book ‘Building Sustainable Communities’ , co-operatives are a highly malleable form of organisation capable of appealing as much to individualism as to collectivism (Birchall, 1988). Phillip Blond, architect of the Conservatives’ ‘Big Society’, also understood this. He hoped to use co-operatives as a means of promoting Anglican Conservatism and ‘family values’ over corrosive privatisation (Blond, 2010). With retrospect, Blond’s agenda never seriously challenged the Tory party’s neoliberal core. But the Coalition did demonstrate the ability of co-operatives, in different guises, to appeal across the spectrum, with 75% of neighbourhood planning initiatives having taken place in Conservative controlled areas (Geoghegan, 2013).

Co-operative Socialism, on the other hand, gave birth to the Labour Party, with many more members of the First International supporting Proudhon and Bakunin’s mutualism than Marx’s problematic dictatorship of the proletariat. John Ruskin and William Morris both demonstrate the potential for co-operatives to have a romantic appeal to the affluent classes, these days obsessed with local food and organic produce. Co-operative working, then, is a word than can be mobilised in conservative or radical guises to respond to the political challenges being faced.

Right to left

A retreat to the left by Labour now will lose them the election in 2020: they simply cannot match the weight of tabloid papers and Conservative ministers insistent on pinning austerity on reckless spending policies. All Blair’s new public sector management tools offered was a double whammy of conformist, bureaucratic service delivery and preparations for future privatisation.

Labour needs a new concept that will allow it to start on the right and draw the electorate to the left. This is, in fact, what David Cameron has been doing with his discourse on austerity. During the 2010 election he was much more circumspect about the causes of the economic crash. This time, backed up by a raft of neoliberal converts in the Lib Dems, he went all guns blazing to pin austerity on profligate state spending. Ed Miliband, meanwhile, offered an inconsistent message that veered between apologising for his party’s economic record and offering price control policies in areas like energy that came across as more of the same.

There have been occasional Conservative attempts to challenge market concentration which the Labour party might learn from. Their plans to increase house building will not work because of market concentration in land ownership and the development industry. But rather than confront these industries with regulation, gentle efforts have been made to encourage new market entrants, focusing on areas such as custom build where new building technologies and approaches already have the potential to challenge the big players. Labour could do the same, continuing the Coalition’s encouragement of co-operative local service delivery and exploring a range of ways to promote co-operative energy producers, house builders and utilities providers using innovative organisational forms rather than giant nationalised companies.

Co-operatives can be deployed as a means of market regulation, as a replacement for some rail services for example, thus helping to highlight the inherent failures of heavily regulated, privately delivered services. They have the potential to reduce the huge expenses currently directed at regulating bodies, contractual arrangements and business failures not to mention profit margins. But they also have the potential to maintain a basically neoliberal form of market delivery: something that will be essential in Labour’s early fight back against the Tories. In the longer term, examples like the anarcho-communist village of Marinelada in Spain show that radical forms of organisation can provide realistic and sustainable solutions (Hancox, 2013).

Rebuild

Co-operation has one last virtue that may prove crucial in 2020, which is that an alliance around co-operative principles may be stronger than a party system where Labour expends valuable resources fighting against the Greens and the SNP. If the south wants light touch regulation, give it to them by using co-operative thinking to inspire ethically conscious consumerism and regulation through local accountability. If Scotland wants progressive Socialism, then encourage a form of co-operative ownership of large public services and infrastructure akin to the Netherlands’ housing association sector. Solidarity from diversity. Yes, this is a vision that has neoliberal tinges, and that is why it offers the best base from which to rebuild.

References

Birchall, J. (1988) Building communities : the co-operative way Routledge & Kegan Paul: London.

Blond, P. (2010) Red Tory : how the left and right have broken Britain and how we can fix it Faber and Faber: London.

Geoghegan, J. (2013) Poorer areas see few neighbourhood plan applications. Downloaded 21st July 2015 from: http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1175787/poorer-areas-few-neighbourhood-plan-applications

Hancox, D. (2013) Spain’s communist model village.Downloaded 21st July 2015 from: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/marinaleda-spanish-communist-village-utopia

Salmon fishing on the Tweed

Posted on 13 July, 2015 by Fiona

A north east listening project

On the radio and online we are witnessing renewed concern to record local memories of cherished landscapes before they are lost forever. Examples of how this can be done include the BBC Listening Project and the National Trust Sounds of our Shores – a crowd-funded sound-map of people’s favourite seaside sounds. These examples build on classic Mass Observation recordings of everyday life (1937-1970) – notably Pub Conversations.

Inspired by this approach, Dr Helen Jarvis and postgraduate student Tessa Holland (both from the School of Geography, Politics and Sociology) are collecting impressions of the once-thriving salmon fishing industry in Berwick upon Tweed; both to stimulate public debate on this disappearing livelihood, and to record the wealth of local knowledge involved.

The project involves a series of ‘pop-up’ citizen-led story-telling events that coincide with the town celebrating 900 years of history, with collaboration from fishing communities and local history experts representing Our Families (a Berwick Record Office, Heritage Lottery funded project for Berwick 900). Participating in a summer of fishing-related feasts and festivals, including the crowning of the Salmon Queen, offers the ideal opportunity to raise awareness of the issues at stake.

The salmon fishing project moves to Berwick Town Hall, with a storytelling booth, from 17^th to 19^th July. After this time the exhibition will be held at the Watchtower Gallery until August 16^th.

Salmon fishing on the Tweed

Written accounts of net fishing on the Tweed exist from the 1200s, but the skills and knowledge of the river date back to before records began. Net and coble fishing is a traditional way of life which made Berwick-upon-Tweed famous and the industry once provided jobs for around 800 local people. The local significance of the industry is captured in pictures and memories of customs such as ‘blessing the salmon’ at the opening of the Tweed salmon netting season, midnight on 14^th February. The vicar of Norham ended the custom in 1987 when the fishery in his parish closed.

Blessing the salmon

Blessing the salmon, 1946, by permission of Berwick Record Office.

Loss of the nets

Chronic disinvestment and loss of the nets began in the 1980s, when many of the fisheries were bought out and closed down. Indeed, this experience – of close-knit community ties and generations of fishing expertise dismantled at a stroke – resonates with text-book accounts of deindustrialisation in heavy industries such as coal and steel. In each case, powerful commercial and political interests claimed economic competitiveness and new technology as motivation for consigning ‘outmoded’ industries to the past.

Since the Tweed Act of 1857 the right to catch and sell wild Tweed salmon is only held by net fisheries; rod-caught salmon cannot be sold commercially, so without the nets, there is no legal source for the wider, non-angling public. The rights to work these dormant fisheries are now held by the Tweed Foundation. Only two net fisheries remain active today – one at Paxton, and one at Gardo (near Berwick Old Bridge). The Paxton fishery now works in partnership with the Tweed Foundation to fish only for educational and scientific purposes. This explains why, despite the undisputed potential for a premium brand of locally caught wild salmon to put Berwick on the map, none is available to buy at the fishmonger or eat in local restaurants. The irony is that Berwick is closely identified with ‘slow food’ and ‘slow living’ civic organisations that promote locally produced, sustainable food and cultural heritage.

Prospects for renewal?

Despite its decline, powerful local attachments to salmon fishing traditions continue to shape the cultural heritage and landscape of this market town. From stories recorded so far, we learn that, in the past ‘thousands of people would go to watch the netting of the salmon – all through the season’ and this made the river a site of spectacle. This hints at some of the non-economic benefits that have been undermined by loss of the nets.

It is too early to report on the impact that public dialogue might have in reviving the last remaining fishing stations – and it is beyond the current scope of the project to make policy recommendations. But it is provocative to consider novel examples of government policy for small towns, like Berwick, which need to attract and retain residents, jobs and tourist income. In France, the government subsidises cafés that provide music and entertainment, justifying this by the combined stimulus to jobs and spending in public spaces – that in turn foster a convivial public life (Banerjee 2001). Is it far-fetched in this context to regard net fishing as a form of entertainment?

Dr Helen Jarvis, School of Geography, Politics and Sociology

Newcastle University Institute for Social Renewal

We are the Newcastle Institute for Social Renewal, Newcastle University

Category Archives: People place and community