Think rural, act rural

‘Rural proofing’ is a deceptively simple concept. It’s a government commitment that as policy is developed and implemented, policy makers should: think about possible differential impacts in rural areas; assess what these might be; and then plan and deliver appropriate adjustments.

The Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) has recently reviewed the experience of ‘rural proofing’. We concluded that in order to be effective, rural proofing must happen as policy is developed and considered, not just at the end.

We concluded that the following responsibilities should apply. Ex-ante rural proofing, that is active consideration (research, impact analysis etc) of possible rural impacts before and during policy development and its implementation is the responsbility of government departments and agencies. But also of delivery bodies (e.g. RDAs); European Union; local authorities and their partners; helped by advice from CRC, Defra, stakeholders, and helped by customer and citizen feedback. 

And then ex-post rural proofing, that is watchdog and audit and inspection reviews of past performance by government at all levels, is the responsibility of the likes of the CRC; select committees; inspectorates; consumer bodies; regulatory bodies; Regional Rural Affairs Forums; Local scrutiny bodies and local councillors. 

The CRC has recently refreshed the rural proofing toolkit. This toolkit is aimed particularly at policy makers in government departments and agencies. But is also very relevant, and we hope useful, to regional and local government and local strategic partnerships. As well as to others, for example those involved in local scrutiny (such as overview and scrutiny committees and local involvement networks (LINKs)). This refreshed toolkit is available at: http://www.ruralcommunities.gov.uk/events/astrengthenedapproachtoruralproofingofgovernmentpolicies 

But why amongst all the different geographies of England should ‘rural’ get special treatment? It’s a matter of equity. England is a highly urbanised society. Less than 20% of the population live in rural areas. Yet population sparsity creates challenges for efficient service delivery. For example, relative lack of scale economies, access and transport challenges. The nature of deprivation can also be different. Typically rural poverty is scattered rather than concentrated. Recent research we published shows that only 2.4% of deprived English areas are in rural England yet 17% of all deprived households are rural households. 

But successful rural proofing is not about rural special pleading, or about urban versus rural. Rural proofing does not mean that rural communities and interests get exactly what they want. Rural needs and circumstances have to be weighed in the balance alongside other needs and circumstances. Take the example of the government’s presumption against the closure of rural schools. This does not mean that no small rural school will ever be closed. But this presumption has significantly reduced the closure of rural schools and local authorities know that they need a rock solid case for closures before making such proposals. 

The case for strong rural proofing has been reinforced by the government’s focus on devolution, ‘place shaping’, ‘total place’ and the ‘mainstreaming of rural’. ‘Mainstreaming’ recognises that all local areas, not just rural areas, need policy and delivery adjustments to meet their own particular needs. So lets look at rural communities alongside other communities. Rather than as being distinct and separate. Effectively delivered mainstream policies and programmes will almost always be more successful and sustainable compared to short-term, stand-alone, rural-specific interventions.