Rural Community Development

SECURING SOCIAL JUSTICE IN RURAL AREAS

Members of the Carnegie Commission for Rural Community Development have over the last year travelled the length and breadth of the UK and Ireland to listen to the views of rural people. We have visited communities that are very different; from island communities such as Gigha to Britain in Bloom winners, Broughshane in County Antrim; from ex-mining villages in the Rhondda valley to tourist honey pots in Cumbria and Connemara. Our evidence gathering confirmed our conjecture as to the many assets within rural Britain and Ireland, but also dispelled the enduring ‘rural idyll’ mythology, which has for too long perpetuated the idea of a homogenous and unproblematic rural culture. A myth that has made the addressing social justice issues such as poverty, gender inequalities and xenophobia such a challenge. This mythology serves only to marginalize certain groups and individuals even further from a sense of belonging. Social justice will be attained only when all people, regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity or religious belief can in their own ways contribute to the success of the rural area as a whole.

Many villages and towns we visited have a strong sense of place; an association with neighbouring settlements derived from centuries of trade and social interaction. It is important, however, to recognise that community is not just about geography – just because people live in the same place does not mean that they belong to the same community. For example, in Wales, the Commission heard of several parallel communities living in one valley – the Welsh who spoke Welsh, the English immigrants who wanted to ‘belong’ to the area so learnt Welsh, the English who didn’t speak Welsh and the Welsh who only spoke English. Each group constructed its own circle of social contacts. A village may at first sight appear to be a single coherent community. Delve a little deeper and you will find hierarchies, prejudice between the settled residents and incomers and even racism.

In the past, to survive a hard life in rural areas, individuals needed to place their own interests first; and their own interests were best served if they also took into account the interests of other people. People voluntarily joined together and collaborated to further the interests of the group and, thereby, to serve their own interests. They helped others in order to help themselves. These groups can be difficult for a newcomer to penetrate.

Friendship and kinship networks in rural areas are still vitally important for individuals during good times and bad. Rural areas have witnessed great change in recent times and these support systems have been challenged. Recent incomers (a.k.a. off-comers or blow-ins) do not automatically have extensive networks of friends and family nearby. How much more difficult it is if an individual has no connection to an area other than through a temporary work permit and a caravan on the edge of the village? We are under no illusion about the nature of this exclusion. We know of many young eastern European workers being charged over £100 per week to occupy, with three others, a small caravan. We know that their take home pay is less than £3.10 an hour. We know that they will not complain.

Social exclusion in rural Britain and Ireland arises from a variety of distinctive historical and contextual factors such as the legacies of land tenure. Nor are rural areas impervious to the problems of the world at large; drug and alcohol misuse, crime and teenage pregnancy are increasingly rural issues. During a lifetime, individuals experience events that can dramatically impact upon their quality of life: becoming unemployed, being separated or divorced, suffering critical illness or having an accident for example. The impact of these personal crises can be exacerbated by isolation and lack of community support.

On the plus side, Commission members have witnessed many strong and vibrant rural communities (of place and interest) with enduring traditions of mutual aid, self-reliance and distinctive culture. These are values that have definitely not been lost in either Britain or Ireland. Indeed in some regards may well be stronger that they have ever been. But they should not be taken for granted. And clearly some communities are stronger, more sustainable and inclusive than others.

Residents, in their own self-interest, traditionally accepted communitarian values as the price of membership. This is a concept that Andrew Carnegie would have understood. Adam Smith, another son of Fife, identified enlightened self-interest as one of the essential ingredients, along with freedom and competition, of free market capitalism. The voluntary self–interest of millions of individuals would create a stable, prosperous society without the need for central direction by the state.

Experience has shown that this can also give rise to social inequality, ecological damage, and the abuse of power. Too often, self–interest succeeds at the expense of society's welfare. We can no longer rely on ‘the market’ to foster self–control, self–discipline, and benevolence in the countryside. The most vulnerable require the State to mediate on their behalf, providing a welfare safety net. Indeed we have witnessed a burgeoning public sector in recent times, including an army of professional guardians of the countryside.

Indeed there are many who now argue thatthe State’s approach to ‘solving problems’ has in turn undermined people’s ability to do things for themselves. This created a culture of dependence upon public institutions and finances to solve rural problems.The power and influence of these bodies is defended because they believe they possess the blueprint for rural revival. They do not always believe in the capacity of rural people to know the right thing to do.

Community self help, the market and the public sector each have a part to play in addressing the many challenges facing 21st century rural Britain and Ireland. The Carnegie Commission believes that rural areas will be less successful if one of these three systems; community, state or market is dysfunctional.

During our evidence gathering, the Commission has noted the issues that most concern rural residents. Here we relate that issue to the failure of community, state or free market and suggest practical solutions that might be progressed.

EXAMPLE OF RURAL ‘INJUSTICE’ / COMMUNITY / STATE / FREE MARKET
Single, frail and elderly residents eligible but not drawing benefits / Contribution: Awareness raising campaign in the village / Contribution: Trusted professional such as practice nurse provides welfare rights advice during routine health check visit / Contribution: Shop and Post Office provide advice and access.
Workers on low pay cannot raise a mortgage large enough to purchase a property or find a property to rent / Contribution: Building costs minimised by ‘sweat equity’ of future occupants of self-build.
Formation of community land trust / Contribution: Release of redundant buildings for conversion by local councils at less than market value
Shared equity schemes / Contribution: Land ‘gifted’ by owner to community land trust.
Conversion of space above shops in market towns
Exploitation of young migrant workers in food processing factory / Contribution:
Community debate regarding the nature of employment opportunities they wish to see developed and the ways in which they can collectively look out for the young people in their area. / Contribution: Enforcement of minimum wage legislation and regulation of working conditions by Health and Safety Executive / Contribution: Raising awareness within the business community of the impact of high staff turnover on the bottom line.
EXAMPLE OF RURAL ‘INJUSTICE’ / COMMUNITY / STATE / FREE MARKET
Small number of women entrepreneurs in rural areas / Contribution: Formation of rural women’s networks as a proven vehicle for confidence building and peer support, childcare schemes. / Contribution: Access to childcare or training
Contract with women’s network for the delivery of business advice / Contribution: Recruitment of women and support for training.
Few affordable rural workshops for business start ups / Contribution: Co-location of workshops and community buildings (guaranteeing a regular income to cross-subsidise community activities) / Problem: Provision by the public sector of workspace that is over specified and unaffordable (and that remains unoccupied)
Solution: sub-divide space
Problem: Planning constraints
Solution: identify within local development plans / Solution: Conversion of redundant farm buildings into very small units, let on ‘easy-in, easy-out’ terms
Important local services only supported by short term project funding / Grant dependent voluntary sector, unaware of income generating potential
Solution: Consensus about priority services through parish planning process / Increasing centralisation of state provided services
Public sector contracting and procurement systems deal with volume suppliers
Rural priorities not considered by public sector
Solutions: Acceptance of parish plan priorities by community planning partnership
Resources to support rural services identified in the community strategy
Funding bodies adopt long term perspective / Contribution: Market opportunities for tailor made enterprises to deliver rural services
EXAMPLE OF RURAL ‘INJUSTICE’ / COMMUNITY / STATE / FREE MARKET
High levels of indebtedness in low income families, with
Families relying on ‘loan sharks’
Lack of money management skills / Contribution: Responsible lending by community finance initiatives and credit unions
Local exchange trading and time bank systems to value skills and effort
Friendly advice from Citizen’s Advice Bureaux counsellors / Contribution: investment in advice services delivered on an outreach basis by voluntary sector organisations in rural areas / Contribution: Banks willing to open bank accounts for young people without settled accommodation
The ‘digital divide’, where some residents cannot access benefits of computer transactions
Some residents not able to afford computer costs
Lack of skills and knowledge / Contribution: Provision of IT facilities in accessible community buildings / Contribution; Community based learning opportunties for all ages in community buildings / Contribution: BT broadband access in rural areas
Conflict between residents and the traveller community / Contribution: Facilitated debate between settled and traveller community / Contribution: Council provides serviced sites / Appreciation of the value of traveller culture to the local economy e.g. horse fairs

There is a vacuum in pubic debate and policy about how best to meet the needs of the most vulnerable people in rural communities. On one hand we witness the damaging effects of the free market on house prices and the poor returns for commodity producers. On the other hand the rural ‘disadvantaged’ have to put up with professional problem solvers labelling and managing their concerns for them at a distance. It seems that in a rural context, it is particularly important that there is co-ordination between community, state and the private sector to ensure that a mix of solutions and provision best serves their needs. This mix cannot be achieved without full engagement of local people, as so much depends upon their own input in identifying priorities and applying sustainable solutions.

However the realities of an unequal distribution of power and influence within rural communities have often been taken as a ‘given’ and the perspective of able and articulate local community leaders and activists too often predominates. Consequently, many attempts at community development in rural areas have tended to reinforce inequalities by endorsing the position of the already powerful individuals who tend to dominate local initiatives.

Community development can and should be a way of enabling all local people to decide, plan and take action to meet their own needs with the help of outside resources when needed. But the assumptions of rural committees need to be challenged to be truly inclusive. Merely gathering together willing attendees to a meeting will not achieve this. The Carnegie Commission believes that the people living or working in rural communities must be seen as partners rather than objects of decisions and policies made elsewhere.

The techniques to engage all residents, particularly those who are too often ignored, will need skilful facilitation. Many rural community support agencies recognise this and are developing methods that rural community leaders can deploy.

Recent legislation has put in place new opportunities for rural communities to express and have acknowledged their priorities – the Community Planning process. This is still at an early stage of implementation and is to often undertaken in a top down fashion, with somewhat token engagement of the community. Indeed mistakenly in our view, Voluntary Sector agencies are too often equated as being ‘the voice of the rural community’. However, enlightened authorities are now supporting techniques of outreach rural community development to ensure that local people are engaged with and shaping the Community Plan. During our evidence gathering, a strong consensus has emerged about the aspirations that ALL rural residents have for their own community. These are the essentials of contemporary rural life:

• Housing to buy or to rent that is affordable, economic to run and suited to the size of the household
• Infrastructure of essential utilities such as water supply, electricity, telephone and broadband connectivity
• Access to affordable and healthy food
• A meeting place
• To feel part of the community and to enjoy companionship
• Employment opportunities that provide a living wage, the opportunity for professional development and a sense of achievement
• Access to health care suited to each stage of life
• Security and public safety – access to police and fire services, safe roads and paths
• Opportunities for re-creation – including self-improvement, religious activity, arts and hobbies, physical activity and socialising
• Social connections – community spirit, acceptance of diversity
• Civic and political rights – involvement in local decision-making
• Sustainable environment – securing biodiversity, recycling of waste, the stewardship of land and water resources

The Carnegie Commission for Community Development believes that more effective and sustainable rural communities will be achieved through combining the efforts and expertise of community, public and private sectors in delivering these positive outcomes.

However current practice in rural community development and public sector delivery has to be examined in this regard. Communities have traditionally secured financial resources to support their aspirations through local government grants, the National Lottery good causes, charitable trusts and foundations, supplemented by local fundraising to finance their projects. In general this has led to an over dependency upon grants.

Some rural communities have also accessed government (and EU) rural regeneration monies. But from the evidence we have seen, communities have to competitively demonstrate all the things they lack in order to prove to potential funders that they are a deserving cause.

Unless a rural area is ‘designated’ as experiencing economic and social problems on a large scale, it will not receive area-based rural regeneration funding. The problem here is that the Indices used to designate rural areas of multiple deprivation, is based on the idea of clustered dimensions of deprivation such as low income income, poor health and disability, low level of skills, poor access to housing and services and crime. Such tools for resource allocation too often fail to recognise conditions experienced by a very small number of people across more isolated rural geographies. In rural areas, individuals may be experiencing great poverty and yet live next door to the very wealthy. The ‘poor’ are not usually clustered together as in many urban areas. The challenge is therefore how to ensure that the needs of the individuals experiencing difficulties can be recognised and met. The approaches to be adopted will need to be very different to urban community development, where an identified area of need is more clearly concentrated.

What Is Asset Based Community Development?

The Carnegie Commission for Rural Community Development is also particularly concerned with practical solutions that build upon the strengths and potential of rural communities, rather than the labelled deficits. This is not to say that real deprivations do not exist and require to be addressed. But that our starting point should be more positive. It is for this reason that we believe there is great merit in supporting asset based community development approaches allied with the re-mutualisation of certain rural assets and a re-distribution of power through techniques that enable those who have been overlooked to get noticed.

It is an approach to community-based development, based on the principles of:

• Appreciating and mobilising individual and community talents, skills and assets (rather than primarily focusing on problems and needs)
• Community-driven development rather than development driven by external agencies, where communities, public and private sectors work in closer partnership. Yet recognising that there may also be disagreements between these three ‘stakeholders’ and that to date it is the community voice that has lost out.

It builds on: