CRC Rural Proofing Review: Inviting your views
Leicestershire Rural Partnership (LRP) Response
The LRP is an informal partnership which has been created to enable partners to work more effectively together to deliver improved services to rural areas. This has been achieved through a range of public, private and voluntary organisations being able to share knowledge, experience and resources.
This response has been put together by a small working group of officers on behalf of the Leicestershire Rural Partnership.
1. How valuable are the current sources of information and guidance on rural proofing?
Since the concept of rural proofing was introduced in the Rural White Paper ‘our countryside: the future’ (2000) there has been a plethora of rural proofing information.More recent guidance has moved away from rural proofing checklists towards the concept of “thinking rural” in all that we do. Clearly the latter is a more embedded approach and one that is welcomed. There does seem to have been limited information and evidence on what works in terms of rural proofing and hence it still feels quite an academic process rather than a practical hands on approach.
How valuable previous guidance has been is probably to some extent answered by the need of this review and the findings of the Monitoring Rural Proofing Report 2007.
We would also suggest that in the spirit of “thinking rural” it is not just paper guidance that is considered in this review, but how this is best disseminated across national and regional agencies, as well as disseminated down to a local level.
The Rural Services Standards 2003 are a clear example of where despite comprehensive information on paper; the objectives did not infiltrate mainstream delivery.
2. What do you think are the barriers to understanding and applying rural proofing at all levels?
The term ‘Rural-Proofing’
The term rural proofing itself can be an inhibitor; some people will perceive this as another bureaucratic burden or another box to tick, in an already busy environment. We need to be clear that rural proofing is also about equality of access and opportunity – it is not just a rural issue, but we aim through rural-proofing to ensure equitable delivery and opportunity across all settlement types, both rural and urban. With this in mind, there could be clear advantages for aligning the concept of rural proofing with the equalities agenda.
‘Rural-proofing’ could also be interpreted as suggesting that rural areas are always disadvantaged and we need to protect against this - clearly this is untrue. In fact we know that many people choose to live in rural areas due to the benefits it brings; we are familiar with affluent picturesque villages, as well as more run-down manufacturing / ex-mining settlements within our rural areas. We therefore need to be clear about the benefits and opportunities rural areas provide including: the economic sectors (equestrianism, tourism, woodland economy, land-based, and food and drink); leisure and recreational activities; as well as smaller community identities and the benefits of associated social capital (often high levels of social capital are seen in smaller cohesive rural communities).
When to apply rural proofing
There is lack of clarity on the most appropriate and opportune times to rural-proof – we could say it needs to be done in everything we do, but more practically it is probably easier to prioritise where our efforts should be focussed. For example, are there specific activities which impacts more greatly on rural areas e.g. transport, health provision, economic support?
In Leicestershire we are fortunate in that we have a Rural Strategy and a Rural Section in the Sustainable Community Strategy which tells us what our rural priorities are and hence where to focus our efforts. We also have an established Leicestershire Rural Partnership with funded officer support which provides an excellent mechanism and group of committed partners that are able to champion rural issues – other areas may not be so fortunate.
When rural proofing, there is a need to understand the demographics of an area to take into account the needs of specific groups e.g. elderly, young people, disabled, minority ethnic groups. As well as more generic needs of the community and the types of services / facilities its residents and businesses may need access to.
Most guidance aimsrural proofing activity at a strategic level rather than looking at how rural proofing can practically be applied at delivery and action planning stages. Clearly both are equally important.
For rural-proofing to be effective it cannot be purely delegated to a local level, but needs to be high on the agenda at regional and national policy development stages. This is particularly important with the focus on mainstreaming activities and diminishing rural specific funds.
Implementation of the Rural Urban Definition 2004
Recent Local Area Agreement guidance suggests that analysing data is an effective way of:
- identifying where changes in policy need to be applied to ensure equity of delivery across rural and urban areas e.g. analysing evidences bases
- monitoring the introduction of this policy / delivery (via performance against indicators) to ensure that rural needs are met
However, applying this process in practice could have the following implications:
- unavailability of the required information / data at a super output area level
- accumulating data for rural areas could mean assuming that all rural areas share similar characteristics / problems – there is a broad spectrum of settlement sizes and types within the definition
- overlooking the type of indicator being monitored i.e. does being rural really impact on this measure
It also assumes a commitment, knowledge and sufficient capacity at a local level to do the analysis – which on top of other performance monitoring commitments is difficult. We are all too familiar with providing information on invisible geographical boundaries whether sub-regional or regional, or via equal opportunity criteria, hence capacity to provide this information on yet another level is limited. Furthermore, the guidance for applying the rural urban definition did not give any advice as to when this would suitably be applied – clearly it would be impractical and futile to apply this to all available indicators.
In Leicestershire we are looking at undertaking an approach which identifies priority LAA rural indicators based on the following (draft) criteria:
- Is there an argument for disadvantage due to a rural location (e.g. limited services, dispersed communities)?
- Is the indicator identified as a rural priority within the SCS and / or Rural Strategy?
- Can existing rural delivery either through the LRP or via wider partners positively contribute to delivering the priority / indicator?
- Is there a “rural premium” that needs to be considered when delivering in rural areas?
- Can the relevant monitoring information be broken down to a level which is suitable to measuring impact at a rural / community level?
Rural Premiums
When so many services are target led or paid on outputs (e.g. some welfare to work and adult learning initiatives), it is easy to see why service providers will often focus delivery on more populated areas. This is particularly where ‘rural-proofing’ at a national or regional policy development level is required.
At a local level there is a constant pull between delivering to the majority and ensuring equitable delivery to all. Clearly this is particularly evident when it comes to accessibility issues either via transport or physical access to services, where the “rural premium” of equitable delivery can be high. There are clear compromises people make when choosing to live in a rural area, and these need to be considered when deciding where and to what extent funds should be applied.
There is concern that many funding sources include best value criteria e.g. unit costs, which can disadvantage rural areas.
3. How can these be overcome?
Rural Thinking
A slightly newer term - but one which more rightly suggests that the consideration of rural issues should be fully embedded in all that we do, rather than be a process that is applied externally. As the Monitoring Rural Proofing Report 2007 identifies rural proofing across central government departments is patchy and is often dependent on individual’s interest in rural issues rather than it being seen as an agency responsibility.
Central Government need to ensure that all departments and publicly funded agencies are clear about their responsibilities, and have a duty to ensure services are delivered equitably regardless of where people live or where businesses are located.
A future aim for rural thinking should be that it is not seen as a stand alone process, but one that it is embedded in the government’s commitment towards no one being disadvantaged by where they live.
Dissemination and good practice
More information should be made available on how rural proofing has worked in practice, enabling good practice to be developed along with the real impacts that can be achieved. The Rural Pathfinders were a good example of utilising good practice, and the lessons learnt from these should be incorporated in any future guidance.
Existing mechanisms for disseminating this information should be used to the full e.g. Government Offices, Rural Affairs Forums, ACRE, Local Government Association. These organisations also need to play a role in monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of rural proofing – within the east midlands the East Midlands Rural Affairs Forum (with the support of GO-EM) has been collating information on how LAAs are being rural proofed across the region. A letter sent by Leicestershire County Council to EMRAF on our LAA rural proofing work is attached as Annex A.
The State of the Countryside 2007 in its looking forward section starts some interesting discussion on the interrelation and interdependency between urban and rural areas. This thought process should underpin rural proofing and be further explored in future reports. The term rural proofing and associated thinking should not only be included in reports with rural proofing in the title - we need to think about its implications in all CRC studies and reports that are published.
A range of workshops at relevant events / conferences would also be useful.
Implementation of the Rural Urban definition
Policy makers and practitioners need to be clear as to which issues are rural specific (common across rural areas) and which issues are community specific. This will then support the case for rural or community proofing to be undertaken, and identify the most appropriate option dependent on the subject area (i.e. applying the rural urban definition or looking at community specific data).
Rural Premiums
Guidance on factors to consider when identifying and considering the issue of rural premiums, and how best to balance value for money versus quality of public service to rural areasis required.
4. How do you think CRC’s role in supporting rural proofing and monitoring its implementation should develop?
The CRC could have a role as expert and champion for rural proofing, however Defra need to take a lead at a national level and be its ambassador amongst other government departments, particularly working closely with Department for Communities and Local Government.
Rural Affairs Forums are an excellent conduit to reach a range of practitioners who have a rural interest within the sub-regions; the CRC should endeavour to better engage, advise, inform and utilise these forums to collate, disseminate and guide best practice at a local level. These should be the main forum for helping to disseminate information either through guidance information or workshops.
Hence, there needs to be a top down and bottom-up approach to rural proofing.
Evidence bases are important and the CRC could do more to explore positive relationships as well as any conflict between rural and urban areas in the ongoing work that it does.
5. How else can the monitoring of rural proofing be strengthened?
Central government departments should be required to undertake rural impact assessments as part of their duty towards equitable delivery.
GO-EM and RDAs have a duty to ensure rural areas are not disadvantaged and this should be highlighted and monitored.
Local Area Agreements are the emerging framework for identifying and delivering local priorities – again there should be a duty to ensure that individuals and settlements are not disadvantaged by where they are located.
The latter two points could be monitored and scrutinised by the CRC working more closely with Rural Affairs Forums.
We hope you find this information useful and we would be happy to provide further information / examples on any specific points of interest.
Louise Driver
Rural Officer (Leicestershire Rural Partnership)
ANNEX A
DearEMRAF Chair
Local Area Agreements and Rural Proofing
Thank you for your letter outlining the importance of considering rural areas within the Local Area Agreement process; and the potential opportunities for working alongside EMRAF to ensure knowledge and expertise is shared and put to maximum effect across the partnership.
You will be pleased to hear that in Leicestershire the needs and opportunities within rural communities are a significant priority. The county council itself chairs, and is secretariat for, the Leicestershire Rural Partnership (LRP) which ensures that wider partners have a say in how collectively we best manage those needs and opportunities.
In July 2007, at the LRPs annual conference we launched the Leicestershire Rural Strategy 2007-2014 which was produced through extensive consultation with partners as well as incorporating local evidence bases. We see this document as being our guide which will in turn help to deliver the Regional Action Plan.
In the development of the Draft Sustainable Community Strategy (which is currently out for public consultation) the Leicestershire Rural Strategy has been considered, and as a result a ‘rural’ cross-cutting theme has been included. ‘Access to Services’ is also included as a cross-cutting theme, but in its broadest sense i.e. not just focussing on rural areas. We see the inclusion of these elements as extremely positive, helping to provide strategic drive and commitment to the work we do.
The LRP is currently undertaking a rural proofing exercise of the SCS to ensure that where appropriate it mirrors the Rural Strategy and highlights where need or opportunity is specific to rural areas.
In parallel, we are also working closely with the development of the Local Area Agreement to ensure rural needs are reflected. The LRP and its members are involved with the development of this document at a number of levels and
- The LRP Chair sits on the Leicestershire Together Board
- The LRP Executive Group Chair and Rural Officer attend and input to the LAA Leads Plus meetings
- Regular update meetings are held with the LAA Manager
- Rural Champions sit on the Economic, Stronger, Safer, and Cleaner and Greener theme groups.
We hope that by being involved at the development stage we will ensure that the rural proofing of the LAA is a proactive rather than reactive exercise.
Although we recognise that having an established Rural Partnership in Leicestershire is hugely beneficial to the acknowledgment of rural issues in the development of the SCS and LAA, there are still many challenges ahead. Not least, the requirement to be able to monitor impact across rural and urban areas, hence ensuring equitable delivery; and making sure delivery mechanisms are flexible enough in their design to effectively deliver in rural areas.
The LRP is happy to share its experience and commitment with other colleagues and counties where possible. In October 2007 we facilitated a workshop at the Regeneration East Midlands Event on Rural Proofing LAAs, and in January 2008 we will be attending the Nottinghamshire LAA Rural Proofing meeting to share our experiences.
We would of course welcome any support or direction that EMRAF can provide. Indeed, we find your correspondence through Newsletters and the website very useful in keeping us up to date with the latest government thinking as well as activities elsewhere in the region.
We look forward to the continuation of our positive working relationship with EMRAF and welcome any support that EMRAF can provide in helping to develop the inclusion and delivery of rural needs within Local Area Agreements.
Yours sincerely
Louise Driver
Rural Partnership Manager
1