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

Brexit Looms: what about rural policy?

Posted on 9 May, 2017 by Fiona

Sally Shortall and Mark Shucksmith

Brexit will have significant effects on rural areas of the UK – the loss of EU funds will not only require new thinking in relation to agricultural and environmental policy but also for broader 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?

Newcastle University’s Centre for Rural Economy recently launched its report ‘After Brexit: 10 key questions for rural policy’ in Westminster on April 27^th, 2017. CRE’s research addresses many aspects of rural economies and societies; food, farming, housing, poverty, gender, employment, the environment, rural community development, rural businesses and services. Our staff seek to inform policy and practice relating to all aspects of rural life. So far, public debate about Brexit has tended to focus primarily on issues relating to agriculture and the environment, however, neglecting these other elements of rural economies and societies.

Rural policies in England have been ripe for reform for many years. 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. But these questions should extend beyond agriculture to consider how the needs of rural communities should be supported in order to give them the best chance of thriving and playing their full part in the future of the UK. Here are some examples of the key questions we raise in our paper:

How can we draw on our experience of European programmes and the successes of the Local Enterprise Partnerships and Rural Growth Networks, and on the valuable evidence we already have (including evaluations of Defra’s Rural Development Programme for England) to inform immediate actions in the wake of Brexit?
Is it more beneficial to embed rural policymaking across all government departments or are rural interests met more effectively when a single department is tasked with leading on this?
Does Brexit offer an opportunity to be more experimental in supporting different, more wide-ranging partnerships that could drive rural development?
What part could neighbourhood plans play in identifying potential sites for affordable housing and should landowners be incentivised to release land for this purpose?

At the event, an invited panel of people made short presentations, followed by a lively and informative debate with an extremely knowledgeable audience. The CRE’s Fran Rowe presented some aspects of our paper, emphasising the potential of the rural economy. Richard Quallington offered insights from ACRE’s perspective, focusing in particular on rural housing and the contribution of voluntary and community organisations. He proposed five priorities for post-Brexit rural policy: reinstatement of a rural housing target; recognition of a rural premium; investment in connectivity; support for rural businesses; and investment in VCSEs. Martin Worner spoke from his experience as a successful rural entrepreneur, highlighting issues of people, premises and training. John Varley also discussed business and give some examples from his work with Clinton Devon Estates of successful strategies for the rural economy to thrive. Tamara Hooper offered a RICS perspective on what should be priorities for negotiations around the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

The ensuing discussion was lively, well-informed and good humoured. People wondered about the governance of rural policy going forward at both national and local levels, and how these might be integrated vertically and horizontally. Who should be in charge of rural policy? Questions were asked too about what would replace LEADER and what should it look like. The argument was cogently made that some of the earlier LEADER programmes that focused on capacity building were very creative and in many countries helped all rural communities to take advantage of economic and social opportunities. Without this focus on capacity building, we run the risk of increasing inequalities between and within rural communities. Questions were also asked about the trade aspects of Brexit and, in the event of ‘no deal’ with the EU what would be the effects of tariffs not only on farms but on rural businesses in general?

The future is uncertain. Newcastle University and the Centre for Rural Economy take seriously our responsibility to inform public debate. We work closely with stakeholder groups, policy makers, and business, to provide independent analysis and always try to ensure that our research is accessible to those who need it. In this era of fake news and post truths, it is particularly important to remember our public responsibility as academics. We hope that with our short report and this event in Westminster we have helped to start an informed public debate about post-Brexit rural policy which others will now continue. As John Varley said, Brexit could be a disaster or an opportunity for rural areas: we must do our best to ensure it is an opportunity for rural economies and societies to thrive in these turbulent times.

CRE’s report referred to above can be downloaded here: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/media/wwwnclacuk/centreforruraleconomy/files/CRE_10_Key_Questions_final.pdf

Sally Shortall is the Duke of Northumberland Chair of Rural Economy

Mark Shucksmith is the Director of the Newcastle University Institute for Social Renewal and a Centre for Rural Economy Associate

Rural proofing: magic bullet or rural vote-catcher?

Posted on 24 March, 2017 by Fiona

We all know that living in the countryside may mean having to travel further to access shops, schools, GP surgeries and hospitals, while some services available in urban areas are simply unobtainable. Communities may complain that they are overlooked and individuals sometimes feel isolated. Rural proofing is intended to address these kinds of inequalities but is it really the magic bullet that will solve everyone’s problems?

The UK Government defines the process thus: “Rural proofing is integral to the policy making cycle. It requires us to make sure that the needs and interests of rural people, communities and businesses in England are properly considered. This applies to the development and implementation of all policies and programmes. For central government, rural proofing means assessing policy options to be sure we get the fairest solutions in rural areas.”

What could be better or more desirable than ensuring fairness all round when you are designing policies? But like most things in life, the reality is much more complicated. The questions we should be asking seem simple: what is rural, who is disadvantaged and what are the problems policies need to address? Unfortunately this is seldom the starting point for policymaking.

In my career as a social scientist working in rural studies I have spent a lot of time looking at the ways in which governments try to design and implement policies that are “fair” to both urban and rural communities. It is a challenge that faces governments worldwide and rural proofing seems to offer a useful tool. But too easily it becomes an all-purpose mallet to be applied without precision across cultures and circumstances. In some instances it seems to miss the mark completely.

In 2015 I was able to spend a month in Monash University in Melbourne to do research on rural proofing there and to have discussions and to provide a briefing paper and presentations about it for policy makers. I quickly realised that their thinking about “rural” focused on what the Australians refer to as “the country”. It is a term that has a pleasant old world sound to it, a nod to European roots. But it fails to take into account the truly remote outback which is home to indigenous Australians or to consider the very real disadvantages they experience. In Australia – as in the UK – how you define “rural” is highly politicised.

Rural proofing as a concept originated with the English Rural White Paper in 2000. My colleagues here in the Centre for Rural Economy have long been concerned with rural proofing, and Jane Atterton wrote in 2008 that the concept needed to be reviewed. Since then more critical questions have been asked, by the House of Commons in 2009 and the OECD in 2011. It is an English concept, and applying it more widely is always destined to be problematic. But even in England such a blanket approach often feels inappropriate. In a recent Lords debate Lord Beith (formerly an MP for a rural constituency himself) argued in favour of rural proofing and observed “Surely we cannot allow ourselves to stumble into a situation where you have to be well off to live in the countryside”. Given the discrepancy between house prices in city and countryside, living in a rural area in England is already well beyond the pockets of many people. Indeed, England is an anomaly in having a countryside that represents aspiration more often than it does deprivation. Of course you will find some disadvantaged communities and individuals there, but can rural proofing address such specific needs? Can it truly ensure that elusive “fairness”?

Scotland has always been more wary of rural proofing, arguing for a much more targeted approach via its Highland and Islands Council. Northern Ireland, on the other hand, is currently developing a guidance framework for rural proofing, very much following the English model, but related to its own Rural Needs Act. In work I am carrying out with colleagues at the Northern Ireland Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, we have highlighted concerns that such a blanket approach could result in unrealistic wish lists, regardless of practical and resource constraints. Providing “equitable” services cannot mean providing the same services in town and country. A small rural school or health provider may be popular locally but provide a poor service when measured against what is available in urban areas. If this is the case, local facilities should not automatically be protected via rural proofing, rather than being amalgamated in order to achieve improved services.

Rural areas are different from towns and cities and the needs of their residents are often different. But relying on rural proofing to address every rural problem will not ensure fairness. All too often it is a process implemented as a rural vote-catcher by governments as they approach election time. A more useful strategy would be to identify specific problems then design the policy to address those. If you do not know what needs fixing, how can you target an effective solution?

Sally Shortall is the Duke of Northumberland Professor of Rural Economy, in Newcastle University’s Centre for Rural Economy

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.

To manage or not to manage: What next for our ‘wild’ uplands?

Posted on 22 September, 2016 by Fiona

On 14 July 2016, the Prime Minister Theresa May announced her new Cabinet, following a significant reshuffle and re-structure of Government. In this context, researchers from all over Newcastle University express their thoughts on the challenges and opportunities for the Government in the Ideas for May’s Ministers blog series, considering how individuals, communities and societies can thrive in times of rapid, transformational change. Professor Mark Reed is the N8 Professor of Socio-Technical Innovation at Newcastle University, funded through the Agri-Food Resilience Programme, and a Professor in the Institute for Agri-Food Research & Innovation and Centre for Rural Economy at Newcastle University. Download his policy brief on this subject.

To: Andrea Leadsom, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
From: Professor Mark Reed, Newcastle School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development

Depending on the policy decisions made in the next weeks and months, we may be about to embark of one of the biggest ‘experiments’ our country has ever known.

It will affect the UK’s rural communities, environment, water supplies, wildlife, recreation and cultural heritage and the consequences of getting it wrong are unthinkable.

And the question? In light of Brexit and the inevitable changes to funding, do we continue to actively manage the peatlands of upland Britain?

There are so many unknowns, how we take this forward is still up for debate. What is certain is that we can’t do nothing.

Without support, historically degraded peatlands in our uplands will continue to deteriorate, losing biodiversity as well as vast quantities of carbon to the atmosphere, degrading water quality and imposing higher water treatment costs on water companies, and subsequently on consumers.

The UK Government has argued consistently for the EU’s bloated Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to be slimmed down but as yet there have been no indications whether farmers will receive less after the current guarantee on payments runs out in 2020.

Almost 40% of the EU’s budget is devoted to the CAP, which is designed to provide stable, sustainable and safe food supplies, whilst maintaining farm incomes.

If there is a reduction in funding, then there is a good chance that farmers in the lowlands will adapt, as long as there are favorable trade deals.

However, a small change in payments could have a significant impact on the viability of land management operations across many UK uplands, given the precarious nature of many upland enterprises that currently depend on EU subsidies.

Leaving aside the wider political arguments, the withdrawal of the UK from the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy after Brexit represents an opportunity to develop new agricultural policies that are better value for taxpayers, protect nature and support rural communities. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the basis on which we pay farmers and others who manage our land, to reward them for the environmental benefits that we all depend on, but often take for granted.

Peatlands represent an important opportunity for this new approach, given the considerable benefits provided by these habitats to the UK.

Research into post-Brexit policy options on peatlands, a large portion of our uplands, leads me to two key conclusions:

There is strong evidence that paying for restoration and active management for conservation could provide benefits for wildlife, water quality, reduced flooding and climate. Meanwhile, we know little about the effects of large-scale withdrawal of management from peatlands.
There is uncertain and often-contested evidence over the potential effects of policies that lead to a large-scale, significant reduction in active management. Taking, a Precautionary Approach would retain farm incomes but provide a renewed focus on the delivery of wider public benefits.

My idea for Andrea Leadsom MP (Environment Secretary) is that refocusing increased funding on restoration and environmental management could provide multiple benefits:

Damaged peatlands would be restored, providing benefits for climate, water quality and wildlife that depend on healthy peat bogs;
Recovery of native woodlands through targeted expansion on non-peat soils (e.g. in valley bottoms between deep peat areas), to provide biodiversity and wider benefits including shelter for livestock, reduce soil erosion and flood management benefits; and
Many of the jobs, rural communities and cultural heritage associated with peatland management would be retained.

In this way, we can support rural communities whilst restoring and improving our largest semi-natural environment, delivering more benefits for everyone in society than we currently get from the money we spend on peatlands through the Common Agricultural Policy.

Download Professor Mark Reed’s policy brief on this subject.

To engage in the conversation, please tweet us @Social_Renewal #IdeasforMaysMinisters

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

Finding ways of sustaining small town regeneration

Posted on 8 April, 2015 by Fiona

Dr Neil Powe is a senior lecturer in Newcastle University School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, and he writes the latest Idea for an Incoming Government about the regeneration of small towns, arguing for a new approach.

What is the problem?

Small towns are rural settlements whose fortunes have reflected many structural changes in the economy. Whilst some small towns have become vibrant centres, successful business locations and/or desirable residential and tourist locations, others, despite their potential, have struggled to adapt to the challenges faced.

Whilst assistance has previously been provided to help these rural settlements regenerate, it is arguable that there has been a failure to match the process to the challenge. As suggested by Powe et al., (2015, p179) “government-initiated programmes tend to reflect the political realities of transitory and generic support for rapid delivery, whereas the practical realities of regeneration require a sustained, collaborative, spatially-sensitive process of change.”

In the current climate of austerity, external agencies are less likely to get involved in encouraging change. With local authorities increasingly focused on their statutory roles rather than regeneration activities, they are also unlikely to provide much support for community capacity development or accessing external funding. Whilst there are good reasons to be concerned about the lack of regeneration funding, it is important to also reflect on the efficacy of the government-initiated programme model of regeneration and consider if there are alternative approaches which are more appropriate and applicable to the long term process of regeneration.

The solution

There is a need to be more realistic about what can be achieved through government support and new regeneration models are required. ‘Big fix’ external prescriptions will generally not work. Instead, successful processes are developed through repeated ‘small wins’ over long periods. Whilst lessons have been drawn from regeneration schemes in the US before, there has been a failure to focus on the charitable nature of their initiatives. Indeed, charitable organisations can be less transitory than government agencies, both in terms of their nature and their underlying principles.

In the UK context there is a growing realisation that innovative approaches are required to small town regeneration, with community enterprises providing one of perhaps many alternative approaches which better match the process to the challenge. Whereas social enterprises are responsible for running a specific business or service, charitable community enterprises are more focused on a particular place and can play a crucial role within regeneration. As long as the enterprises run by the organisation remain viable they can provide locally based expertise to help manage the regeneration process.

The evidence

These findings are based on two research projects.

The first research project (Powe et al., 2015) was a review of past experience of small town and other forms of regeneration which confirmed the tendency for government-initiated approaches to fail to match the regeneration process to the challenge. This project also extended understanding by considering the favourable case of an unusually long running government-initiated scheme. The role of the Regional Development Agency was found to be essential in providing initial momentum, facilitating engagement, bringing new ideas to the regeneration process and removing blockages which would have been difficult to deal with locally. Yet, consistent with other previous initiatives, frictions emerged as the agency strived to be over-directive. There was little local ownership in the partnership formed, or awareness of local history or culture in its scale of operation. The partnership also did not have any assets upon which to sustain its efforts (although efforts were made to achieve this). When external funding was withdrawn the local partnership folded.

The second research project is still ongoing but builds on the work of Healey (2015) (also at Newcastle University) which demonstrates the merits of a specific community enterprise in Wooler, Northumberland. More recently, this work has been extended by Neil Powe to other community enterprises engaged in small town regeneration. Whilst some enterprises do fail, lessons are being learnt and exemplars are emerging which demonstrate that this approach has potential to better match the process to the challenge. For example, for approximately twenty years there has been sustained effort and local expertise within Wooler and another Northumberland town, Amble, which has led to significant but incremental regeneration. Within these charitable trusts short term political objectives are put to one side and there is instead a focus on the mutual interests of regeneration. Clearly the relevance of the community enterprise model will depend on the specifics of the individual town but the research demonstrates the potential at least to develop new innovative models which are more appropriate to the regeneration challenges faced.

Healy, P. (2015) Civil society enterprise and local development, Planning Theory and Practice, 16(1), 11-27.

Powe, N.A., Pringle, R. and Hart, T. (2015) Matching the process to the challenge within small town regeneration, Town Planning Review, 86(2), 177-202.

A Charter for Rural Enterprise

Posted on 6 March, 2015 by Fiona

Jeremy Phillipson (School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development) considers rural enterprise, in the latest of our Ideas for an Incoming Government. His vision is a Charter for Rural Enterprise, protecting rural economies and allowing them to flourish.

What is the problem?

We should be doing more with our rural enterprises. Rural areas contribute at least £211 billion a year directly to the nation’s economy but have great potential to achieve even more. Cuts in public spending and the need to rebalance the economy means that our expectations of what enterprise can achieve in employment, wealth creation and service provision have increased. We must, therefore, expect to see growth across the whole country rather than only in certain cities or sectors. The distinctive characteristics, business and employment structure and past performance of rural economies mean that they are well placed to meet this challenge. Through a new Charter for Rural Enterprise, we propose that an effective and transparent rural proofing of growth plans and policies be pushed forward across all business sectors and localities in order to tailor measures to rural conditions and assess their applicability to rural economies.

The solution

Rural areas have a number of dynamic features that enable economic growth:

They have more businesses per head of population than many urban areas.
Firms started by people moving into rural areas are more likely to sell their products and services on national and overseas markets, thus earning revenue beyond the locality.
Many manufacturing businesses are located in rural areas and this sector provides a higher proportion of rural jobs and output than are supported by urban manufacturing firms.
Rural economies have pioneered privatisation and community provision of many local services, fuelled by a combination of delivery and access difficulties and the distinctive nature of rural demand.
As the economic value and potential of ecosystems services are recognised these will offer increased opportunities for growth.
Rural economies have demonstrated their potential to provide more growth and employment if given appropriate stimuli and support from national and local business leaders and policy makers.

However rural growth measures have been more fully developed for the land-dependent sectors of farming, forestry, food and environmental services. Whilst these are important for the nation, in many rural areas we need to look to other sectors that are the primary engines for growth, for example in manufacturing, professional, scientific and technical sectors, and wholesale and retail. Through establishing a Charter for Rural Enterprise, rural economies would be treated as cross-cutting and more effectively embedded in mainstream policies and plans for economic development. This should include a commitment to:

Strategies for growth that respond to local variability of the spatial, sectoral and business size profiles of rural economies, and which drive resources to the local level through an approach that meets local constraints and opportunities of rural places. This would identify and respond to the diversity of growth challenges in rural industries. We also propose a review of the needs and opportunities for rural and home-based micro enterprises that have so far fallen beneath the radar of economic and enterprise policy.
Spatially-balanced and inclusive economic growth; to this end Impact Assessments should be prepared and published at national and sub-national level for economic plans and policies for areas larger than (lower tier) local authorities (for example City Deals, LEPs’ Strategic Economic Plans and European Structural and Investment Fund Strategies), to demonstrate their impacts on, and inclusiveness of rural areas. Assessments would identify spatial or functional gaps in, and weaknesses of, policies and programmes, inform future resource allocations and encourage a sense of inclusiveness.
Demonstrating ways that rural firms can realise the value of the natural environment to their growth, by securing efficiencies and developing new products and services. We also propose a national review of the challenges and adaptation needs facing rural enterprises in responding to the pressures of environmental change.
Strengthening rural business and community institutions which form the bedrock of our rural firms and bolster their innovative capability and resilience; to this end we should build on the experience of the Rural Growth Networks to extend nationally the network of rural work hubs offering flexible work premises and access to shared facilities. We suggest support for the establishment of rural business clubs and associations that provide rural business mentoring and strengthen the voice of rural business through establishing a National Rural Business Task Force to ensure that core business, financial and innovation policies are sensitive to rural needs.
Investment in affordable housing, public transport and local services which are essential for employee recruitment and new business development. In addition to providing meaningful support for building new housing or providing public transport in rural areas, financial help should be provided to small employers with hard-to-fill vacancies due to their area’s lack of affordable housing and poor public transport. These barriers to employment and growth of small firms are particularly evident in remote rural locations, and local economies with poor connectivity and limited pools of skilled labour, exacerbated by low stock of low cost housing. The Government should explore how tax reliefs or direct payments can be extended to measures taken by employers to help new employees’ access accommodation or transport to the workplace.

Overall, we need a new commitment to rural enterprise. This would entail more transparent proofing of national and local growth plans across all business sectors and localities. We need better engagement between stakeholders, to strengthen our understanding of rural business potential and to use this to inform strategic commitment to rural economies. Academia needs to play its part in filling the gap in independent rural analysis. This will allow us more firmly to take the pulse of rural economies as they respond to shocks, whether it be flooding, economic downturn or disease outbreak, and to more effectively assist their recovery to full health.

The evidence

Commission for Rural Communities (2011) Small towns in rural England.
Defra (2013) Statistical Digest of Rural England 2014
Defra (2010) Economic Growth and the Environment
Atterton, J. and Affleck, A. (2010) Rural Businesses in the North East of England: Final Survey Results. Centre for Rural Economy Research Report.
Phillipson J et al. (2011) Rural Economies: Incubators and Catalysts for Sustainable Growth. Submission to Government’s Growth Review – Stage 2, Centre for Rural Economy and Relu.
Phillipson J and Turner R (2013) Rural Areas as Engines of Economic Growth. Rural Economy and Land Use Programme Policy and Practice Note no 41.
OECD Rural Policy Reviews: England, United Kingdom 2011

Tweet @Social_Renewal using #Ideas4anIncomingGovt to join in the conversation.

Affordable housing: a fair deal for rural communities

Posted on 3 March, 2015 by Fiona

Professor Mark Shucksmith OBE, Director of the Newcastle University Institute for Social Renewal, considers the problem of providing affordable housing in rural areas, and presents the findings of the Rural Housing Policy Review group.

It’s now 34 years since my first book, “No Homes For Locals?” was published. This worries me partly because this suggests I’m not as young as I used to be; but mainly it worries me because we have made so little progress in addressing the challenges of enabling people to live and work in the countryside which prompted me to write that book. There are severe housing difficulties throughout the UK, but rural areas face special difficulties. In the UK, uniquely, rural house prices are higher than in urban areas – in fact, 26% higher on average. The ratio of house prices to local earnings is even worse. And there is far less social housing (council housing and housing association housing) than in urban areas, not least due to Right to Buy sales going through the roof in recent decades.

For the last year I’ve worked with other experts as part of the Rural Housing Policy Review group, chaired by Lord Best, to propose solutions to this challenge which acknowledge the current constraints on public spending. Last week we presented these at a launch in the House of Lords. Here is a summary of our proposals, the latest of our ‘Ideas for an Incoming Government’:

Because more sites are needed:

Since the vast majority of rural schemes are on small sites, Government’s policy is to remove from local authorities the power to require affordable homes on sites of less than 10 homes. This must be reversed. Local Planning Authorities should require all sites, whatever their size, to make an affordable housing contribution. The level of this contribution – in cash or kind – will be determined by what works in the housing market of that area.
Government should provide incentives to encourage land owners to develop rural affordable housing to meet local needs or to release sites for these homes, e.g. through tax incentives or nomination rights, which would also stimulate the local economy.
Since local communities cannot properly influence what kind of development takes place without a Local Plan, Government should require all local authorities to complete their Local Plan preparation within two years

Because new homes must be affordable to local people:

Government should exclude rural areas from the “spare room subsidy withdrawal” (commonly known as the ‘bedroom tax’) because there are so few opportunities for rural tenants in houses to move to 1 or 2 bedroom flats in villages; these households should not be forced to move away from their long-standing social and support networks to urban areas elsewhere.
Where there are already problems from the low levels of affordable housing and limited opportunities to build any more, Government should give rural local authorities the power to suspend the Right to Buy scheme.
To provide a driver for action and delivery by housing associations of all sizes, a new national target for delivery of rural housing through the Homes and Communities Agency should be established of 13% of the HCA’s national investment.
To address problems of accessing development finance, Government should find ways of supporting the development funding of small and medium-sized builders and housing associations that undertake smaller developments: e.g. recalibrating its loan guarantee scheme to cover schemes of less than 25 homes.

Because affordable homes need to be there for future households:

To ensure rents are affordable in low wage, high house price rural communities, Government should not require housing associations to charge so-called ‘affordable rents’ at 80% of market rental rate as a condition for receiving HCA funding. Instead, as in Greater London, rents should be charged at a level agreed between the local authority and the housing provider as being affordable in relation to local incomes.
Where an area is experiencing high levels of second home ownership, Government should endorse the approach taken by the Exmoor National Park Authority, and in other places, by requiring a proportion of open market homes – up to a 100% in exceptional cases – to be granted planning permission with the condition that they can only be used as principal residences.
Although those buying affordable homes on special terms need to be able easily to access a mortgage it is essential that they do not simply resell for a profit at a later date. The Council of Mortgage Lenders should, at long last, produce a standardised mortgage form for rural affordable home ownership which incorporates a ‘perpetuity’ arrangement.

Because leadership is needed from national to community level:

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as the champion for rural areas, should ensure ‘rural proofing’ is continuously and consistently applied to national policies, with specialist, rural technical expertise available to all Government departments.
Because Neighbourhood Plans are a vital means for rural communities to deliver affordable homes, yet require resources and expertise, Government should increase and extend its support (beyond April 2015) for more communities to produce Neighbourhood Plans. And the Homes and Communities Agency should offer match funding to housing associations for the employment of Rural Housing Enablers who can play the key role in bringing together parish councils, land owners, local authorities and housing associations to achieve affordable rural homes.

There is more detail in our full report which you can download free here. The shortage of affordable rural housing is an issue not just for young people and others earning middle to low incomes; it has a wider significance as our countryside becomes ever more socially exclusive, a place where only rich people will be able to afford to live and in which most members of society can never be resident. This growing separation between rich and poor threatens our social solidarity and is far from ideas of ‘one nation’, espoused by successive governments.

Members of the Rural Housing Policy Review

Lord Richard Best OBE DL (Chair of the Rural Housing Policy Review)

Lord Matthew Taylor

Lord Ewen Cameron DL FRICS

Elinor Goodman

David Fursdon DL FRICS

Margaret Clark CBE

Sue Chalkley

Professor Mark Shucksmith OBE

Peter Moore

Peter Hetherington

Cllr Anne Hall

Jo Lavis (Secretary and member)

Tweet @Social_Renewal using #Ideas4anIncomingGovt to join in the conversation.

An Awfully Big Adventure – Four Visit No 10

Posted on 15 October, 2014 by Kate

Guy Garrod, Director of the Centre for Rural Economy, writes this blog following an invitation to meet with the Prime Minister’s Policy Unit at 10 Downing Street on Monday 10th October. The meeting was to discuss the challenges facing rural communities. Attending were (l-r) Guy Garrod, Dr Neil Powe, Professor Mark Shucksmith and Rhona Pringle.

This blog has kindly been shared by CRE. It first appeared:
http://creblogsite.blogspot.co.uk/

A big challenge for any research centre that specialises in the applied social sciences, is to make sure that their findings reach the relevant people in the policy and practice community. Imagine my excitement when last week I received an invitation from the Prime Minister’s Policy Unit to visit No 10 to discuss the challenges facing rural communities, and what more Government could be doing to support rural areas. It seemed that our recent policy document ‘Reimagining the Rural’ has dropped onto some influential desks in Westminster.

Continue reading →

Newcastle University Institute for Social Renewal

We are the Newcastle Institute for Social Renewal, Newcastle University

Tag Archives: rural