a study on rural policygazdakorok.hu/files/2011/03/1_melléklet.pdf2011/03/01 · figure 6.4: views...

A Study on Rural Policy

March 2005

i

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Study on Rural Policy

This report has been prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP for the exclusive use ofthe Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, in accordance with the specificterms set out in a letter of engagement dated 30th March 2004. PricewaterhouseCoopersLLP does not accept or assume any liability or duty of care for any other purpose forwhich this report may be used or in relation to any other third party or other person(s) ororganisation(s), who may read and / or rely on this report, save where expressly agreedin writing with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. The reader is therefore advised to seek theirown professional advice before placing reliance upon the contents of this report. Furtherthis report has been produced subject to important qualifications, reservations andassumptions and, without prejudice to that set out above, it should be read in thecontext of those qualifications, reservations and assumptions.

©2005 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. All rights are hereby asserted and reserved. Thisreport is protected under UK and international intellectual property laws, includingwithout limitation, copyright. It contains information that is the propriety of and / or whichis confidential to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. This report shall not be disclosed,amended, varied, abbreviated, copied, published or otherwise altered, disseminated ormanipulated in any way, whether in whole or in part without the prior written consent ofPricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (www.pwc.com) is the world’s largest professional servicesorganisation. Drawing on the knowledge and skills of more than 125,000 people in142 countries, we build relationships by providing services based on quality andintegrity.

(Unless otherwise indicated, “PricewaterhouseCoopers” refers toPricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England.PricewaterhouseCoopers is a member firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers InternationalLimited).

©2005 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. All rights reserved. “PricewaterhouseCoopers”refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated inEngland or, as the context requires, other member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopersInternational Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP acknowledges the assistance afforded by all those whocontributed to the preparation of this report. We would like to extend our appreciation tothe many organisations who gave up their time and participated in the researchprogramme.

In addition, we extend our thanks to the members of the Sub-Group of the RuralStakeholder Forum for their assistance and support over the course of the preparation ofthis report.

Finally, we wish to acknowledge the inputs of our specialist external consultants from theDepartment of Sociology, Queen’s University of Belfast, Gibson Institute of Land, Foodand Economics at Queen’s University of Belfast and the Countryside and CommunityResearch Unit at University of Gloucestershire who supported the PwC team inundertaking the preparation of this report.

ii


Glossary ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... iiiList of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ivList of Tables ................................................................................................................................................................................................ iv

1 Background and terms of reference ...............................................................................................................................................................1Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................................1Current funding arrangements for rural development .........................................................................................................................................1Terms of reference .........................................................................................................................................................................................3Our understanding of the terms of reference ....................................................................................................................................................3Conclusions from the ‘scoping exercise’ ..........................................................................................................................................................6Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................................................................6Report structure .............................................................................................................................................................................................8

2 History of rural development policy ................................................................................................................................................................9Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................................9History of EU rural development ......................................................................................................................................................................9The origins of NI rural policy ..........................................................................................................................................................................15Relevant cross-cutting policy initiatives ...........................................................................................................................................................18

3 Defining ‘rural’ .............................................................................................................................................................................................20Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................20Definition of rural areas across EU and NI ......................................................................................................................................................20Definitions of rural across NI Departments .....................................................................................................................................................20Wider approaches to defining rural International/EU/UK/NI .............................................................................................................................20Work of the Urban–Rural Definition Group in NI ...............................................................................................................................................23Defining rural areas by population density and land use .................................................................................................................................. 23Developing definition options .........................................................................................................................................................................25Concluding comments ...................................................................................................................................................................................26

4 Baseline position and needs of rural areas in Northern Ireland .......................................................................................................................28Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................28The wider economic context ..........................................................................................................................................................................29A place to live ..............................................................................................................................................................................................29A place to work ............................................................................................................................................................................................32A place to do business .................................................................................................................................................................................36A place to govern ..........................................................................................................................................................................................37Concluding comments ...................................................................................................................................................................................38

5 The rationale for rural policy intervention ......................................................................................................................................................40Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................40Justification for Intervention ..........................................................................................................................................................................40Assessment framework .................................................................................................................................................................................40Assessment of rationale for rural intervention ................................................................................................................................................41Concluding comments ...................................................................................................................................................................................44

6 Effectiveness of rural policy to date ..............................................................................................................................................................45Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................45Review of relevant evaluations – activity levels and outputs arising from rural development initiatives ................................................................ 45Perceived effectiveness of rural development activity to date – research findings .............................................................................................. 49Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................................................................56

7 Learning from elsewhere ..............................................................................................................................................................................57Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................57Environmental capital as a driver of rural development ....................................................................................................................................58Social capital as a driver for rural development ...............................................................................................................................................60Partnership working in rural development .......................................................................................................................................................62Bridging farming and non-farm sectors in rural economies ............................................................................................................................... 64Supporting successful farm adaptation ..........................................................................................................................................................65Rural White Papers in the Republic of Ireland and other UK regions .................................................................................................................. 66The New Zealand experience in relation to policy approaches and initiatives used in relation to Rural Development ............................................. 71Overall conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................................................72

8 Way forward and future directions ................................................................................................................................................................74Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................74International perspective ...............................................................................................................................................................................74European Union perspective ..........................................................................................................................................................................75Strategic implications ...................................................................................................................................................................................79Aspirations and views on the way forward ......................................................................................................................................................81Principles or criteria for a future rural policy ....................................................................................................................................................82Towards a new approach to rural policy? ........................................................................................................................................................82

Appendix A – Scoping PaperAppendix B – BibliographyAppendix C – Issues PaperAppendix D – SoundingsAppendix E – Baseline Position of Rural Areas in NIAppendix F – Mapping Rural InterventionsAppendix G – Learning from elsewhere – Case Studies

Contents

iii


Glossary

ABSAG Area Based Special Action GroupsAONB Areas of Outstanding BeautyASSI Areas of Special Scientific InterestBMA Belfast Metropolitan AreaBSP Building Sustainable ProsperityCAP Common Agricultural PolicyCBD Convention on Biological DiversityCMS Countryside Management SchemeCRISP Community Regeneration and Improvement Special

ProgrammeCSF Community Support FrameworkDA Disadvantaged AreaDAF Department of Agriculture and FoodDANI Department of Agriculture for Northern IrelandDARD Department of Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentDCAL Department of Culture, Arts and LeisureDCMNR Department of Communications, Marine and Natural

ResourcesDE Department of EducationDEFRA Department of Environment, Food and Rural AffairsDEL Department for Employment and LearningDETI Department of Enterprise, Trade and InvestmentDCRGA Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht AffairsDFP Department of Finance and PersonnelDHSSPS Department of Health, Social Services and Public

SafetyDoE Department of the EnvironmentDRD Department for Regional DevelopmentDSD Department for Social DevelopmentEAGGF European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee FundEARDF European Rural Development FundEC European CommissionECSC European Coal and Steel CommunityEHS Environmental and Heritage ServiceELCMS Entry Level Countryside Management SchemeERDF European Regional Development FundESA Environmentally Sensitive AreaESF European Social FundEU European UnionFDI Foreign Direct InvestmentFIFG Financial Instrument for Fisheries GuidanceFMD Foot and Mouth DiseaseFTE Full Time EquivalentFWPS Farm Woodland Premium SchemeGB Great BritainGDP Gross Domestic ProductGVA Gross Value AddedHa HectareHBOS Halifax and Bank of ScotlandICT Information Communication TechnologyIFI International Fund for IrelandINI Invest Northern IrelandLAGs Local Action GroupsLFA Less Favoured AreaLGD Local Government DistrictLOO Letter of OfferLSPs Local Strategy PartnershipsMEP Member of European ParliamentMLA Member of Legislative AssemblyMP Member of ParliamentMTE Mid-Term Evaluation

NDPBs Non Departmental Public BodiesNI Northern IrelandNIAO Northern Ireland Audit OfficeNIAPA Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers AssociationNICVA Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary ActivityNIHE Northern Ireland Housing ExecutiveNIEL Northern Ireland Environmental LinkNISP Northern Ireland Single ProgrammeNISRA Northern Ireland Statistics & Research AgencyNITB Northern Ireland Tourist BoardNRP National Rural PartnershipNRRTI Natural Resource Rural Tourism InitiativeNZVs Nitrate Vulnerable ZonesOCBs Other Collective BodiesOFMDFM Office of the First Minister and Deputy First MinisterOFS Organic Farming SchemeOP Operational ProgrammeP&R Peace & ReconciliationPC Programme ComplementPfG Programme for GovernmentPwC PricewaterhouseCoopersRACs Rural Area Co-ordinatorsRCN Rural Community NetworkRDA Regional Development AgencyRDC Rural Development CouncilRDD Rural Development DivisionRDP Rural Development ProgrammeRDR Rural Development RegulationRDS Regional Development StrategyREAP Rural Education Activities ProgrammeROSA Regeneration of South ArmaghRPA Review of Public AdministrationRPSG Rural Proofing Steering GroupRSPB Royal Society for the Protection of BirdsSACHR Standing Advisory Commission for Human RightsSDA Severely Disadvantaged AreaSERAAD Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs

DepartmentSFP Single Farm PaymentSMEs Small Medium EnterprisesSPARD Sub Programme for Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentTIFF Total Income From FarmingTSN Targeting Social NeedUN United NationsUFU Ulster Farmer’s UnionUK United KingdomUSP Unique Selling PointUWT Ulster Wildlife TrustVCU Voluntary and Community UnitWGS Woodland Grant SchemeWTO World Trade Organisation

iv


List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Overview of EU funding for Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentFigure 1.2: Overview of CAP Second Pillar in Northern Ireland and other EU Rural Development ActivityFigure 1.3: EU contribution to Rural Development Measures (2000–2006)Figure 1.4: Key questions posed by the Terms of ReferenceFigure 1.5: Overview of our approachFigure 1.6: Agenda for Conference 15th June 2004Figure 2.1: Ten point rural development programmes proposed through the Cork Declaration 1996Figure 2.2: Principles endorsed at Salzburg Conference 2003Figure 2.3: Summary of principles from the Cáceres Declaration 2004Figure 2.4: Evolution of CAPFigure 3.1: Population density (per Ha) at ward level in Northern Ireland (Source: 2001 Census)Figure 3.2: Job density (per Ha) at ward level in Northern Ireland (Source: 2001 Census)Figure 4.1: Population projections, 2002 to 2017Figure 4.2: Economic inactivity by Local Government District, May 2003Figure 4.3: Manufacturing employment, UK and NI: 1971–2013Figure 4.4: Private sector services employment in Northern Ireland, 1991 to 2030Figure 4.5: Tourism employment in Northern Ireland, 1991 to 2030Figure 4.6: Public sector employment in Northern Ireland, 1991 to 2030Figure 4.7: Foreign Direct Investment in Northern Ireland (1990/01 = 100)Figure 6.1: Views on the effectiveness of the policy/strategy and programming approach to dateFigure 6.2: Views on Rural ProofingFigure 6.3: Views on the complicated mature of delivery arrangementsFigure 6.4: Views on the effectiveness of the bottom-up approach achieved through LEADERFigure 7.1: Departments responsible for Agriculture and Rural Development in UK RegionsFigure 8.1: Overview of Structural Funds 2007–2013Figure 8.2: Overview of First Pillar and Second Pillar of CAPFigure 8.3: Funding for Rural Development 2007–2013Figure 8.4: Aspirations and views on future directionsFigure 8.5: Towards a new approach to rural policy?Figure 8.6: Strategic Policy GoalsFigure 8.7: Overview of StrandsFigure 8.8: Option 1Figure 8.9: Option 2Figure 8.10: Option 3

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Membership of the Rural Stakeholders Forum and Project Steering GroupTable 1.2: DARD’s Rural Development ProgrammeTable 1.3: Other measures linked to rural developmentTable 1.4: Terms of Reference and report structureTable 2.1: Overview of RDPs in Northern Ireland 1991–2006Table 2.2: Population of rural NI according to RDSTable 3.1: Definition of ‘rural’ as per the Inter-Departmental Urban–Rural Definition GroupTable 3.2: Low population density and low job densityTable 3.3: High population density and high job densityTable 3.4: Low population density but high job densityTable 3.5: High population density but low job densityTable 3.6: Critique of definitions of rural areas applied in Northern IrelandTable 6.1: Overview of evaluation reports reviewedTable 6.2: Jobs created by each component part of RDP, 1994–99Table 6.3: Other impacts from 1994–99 RDPTable 6.4: Quantitative findings from MTE EAGGF Measures (2000–2006)Table 6.5: Progress with Peace II measuresTable 8.1: Principles/criteria for a future policy

1


1 Background and Terms of Reference

Introduction1.1 This is the Final Report on thestudy of rural policy in Northern Ireland (NI)commissioned by the Department ofAgriculture and Rural Development (DARD).

1.2 Given the range of interventionsthat impact on rural areas and thepotentially ‘all encompassing’ nature ofthe review, this section begins by settingout the context for the review and framingthe scope of the study. Following that, thesection details the terms of reference,outlines the methodological approach andsets out the content of subsequentsections of the report.

Current fundingarrangements for ruraldevelopment1.3 Whilst all GovernmentDepartments generally intervene in ruralareas in Northern Ireland, to date ruraldevelopment activity undertaken by DARDhas largely been funded by externalsources namely the European Union (EU)and the International Fund for Ireland (IFI).

EU Funding1.4 The current funding provision forrural development activity in NI is complex,which in part derives from the intricaciesof European Union (EU) legislation. Agenda2000, the title given to the most recentmajor round of EU policy reform, led togreater emphasis being placed within theCommon Agricultural Policy on ruraldevelopment and the environment (the‘Second Pillar of CAP’) as reflected in theRural Development Regulation (No. 1257/99). The Second Pillar of CAP incorporatesenvironmental and rural developmentinitiatives whereas the First Pillar focuseson price support and production subsidiesas summarised in Figure 1.1. The FirstPillar is wholly financed by the EAGGFGuarantee Section, whereas the SecondPillar is funded by EAGGF Guidance andGuarantee. In addition, the EU supports avariety of rural development activitiesthrough the other structural funds (ERDF,FIFG and ESF).

1.5 The Rural Development Regulation

(No. 1257/99) led to the establishment ofthe NI Rural Development Regulation Plan(2000-2006). This Plan focuses on the so-called Accompanying Measures. It isfunded through the Guarantee Section ofthe EAGGF and is centred onaccompanying and complementing marketpolicies funded through the First Pillar ofCAP. The non-accompanying measures,funded by Guidance, are set out in theNorthern Ireland Community SupportFramework (CSF) and along with the otherstructural funds (ESF, ERDF and FIFG),support rural development activity in thePEACE II and BSP Programmes.

1.6 Of the non-accompanyingmeasures, some are stand alonemeasures in the Peace II and BSPProgrammes while others are included inthe Rural Development Programme (RDP)Strategy 2001-2006. Rural developmentmeasures in the EU-funded ‘CommunityInitiative’ INTERREG IIIA and Leader+Programmes are also incorporated into the

RDP. The various components of the NIRural Development Regulation (RDR) Planand the NI Rural Development Programmeare summarised in Figure 1.2 and detailedin Table 1.2 and 1.3.

1.7 Northern Ireland has beenallocated over e1.5 billion in EU fundsover the 2000–2006 funding period, ofwhich some 22% (e337m) will be spent onrural NI. The split of the rural fundingacross all of the various sources identifiedabove is illustrated graphically in Figure1.3. This graph indicates that the largestfunding sources are for the Agri-Environment schemes, the Less FavouredAreas (LFAs) and the Building SustainableProsperity (BSP) programme.

The International Fund forIreland1.8 In addition to EU funding, ruraldevelopment activity in Northern Ireland isalso supported by the IFI. The IFI wasestablished as an independent

Figure 1.1: Overview of EU funding for Agriculture and Rural Development

CAP Pillar I

PRICE AND MARKETSPOLICY

A combination of measureswhich provide market supportto farmers. Some commoditiesrely heavily on guaranteedminimum prices set by theCouncil of AgriculturalMinisters. The prices aremaintained by a mix ofintervention buying, productioncontrols, export subsidies andhigh-import tariffs. There arealso direct payments linked toproduction – the number oflivestock or the area of landunder crops.

Funded through:--EAGGF (Guarantee)

Funded through:--EAGGF (Guidance andGuarantee)

NON AGRICULTURE STRUCTURAL

FUNDS Objectives 1 and 2

Other rural developmentactivity: supports for local ruraldevelopment, training, fisheriesand cross-border co-operation

Funded through:-ESF, ERDF, FIFG and EAGGF(Guidance)

CAP Pillar II

ENVIRONMENT ANDRURAL DEVELOPMENT

Direct payments for providingpublic goods such as conservingthe countryside and ruralheritage, protecting theenvironment, promotingbiodiversity and developing therural economy.

2


international organisation by the Britishand Irish Governments in 1986 with theobjectives of promoting economic andsocial advance, and encouraging contact,dialogue and reconciliation betweennationalists and unionists throughoutIreland. The IFI receives contributions fromthe United States of America, Canada,New Zealand, the European Union andAustralia and has committed some £499mtowards a range of community capacitybuilding, regeneration and economicdevelopment programmes in NorthernIreland and the six border counties ofIreland1.

1.9 With regard to specific ruraldevelopment activity in Northern Ireland,the IFI supports the CommunityRegeneration & Improvement SpecialProgramme (CRISP), the RuralDevelopment Programme (RDP) and theTourism Programme:

Figure 1.2: Overview of CAP Second Pillar in Northern Ireland and other EU Rural Development Activity

* It should be noted that:- The above figures are all taken from the BSP, Peace, LEADER+ and INTERREG Programme

Complements and the LFA, Agri-Environment and Forestry figures are taken from the RuralDevelopment Regulation Plan 2000-2006.

- The figures above relate to all rural Measures related to this study which are set out later in thisSection

- The RDRP figures include modulation funds (for example, Agri-Environment funds consist of 41.43meuros from earlier commitments and 43.06 from modulation funds, therefore is worth in total84.49 meuros)

- The figures represent the EU contribution (ERDF, ESF, EAGGF and FIFG) and not national contribution.The RDRP has various match funding rates, generally from 25% to 75% of total public funds.

0

20

40

60

80

100

ForestryAgrienvironment

LFAInterregLeader+PeaceBSP

Figure 1.3: EU Contribution to Rural Development Measures (2000–2006)

1 International Fund for Ireland (2003) Annual Report and Accounts2003

EAGGF (Guidance Section)Non-accompanying measures

EAGGF (Guarantee Section) Accompanying measures

Rural Development Regulation Plan (2000-2006)

Rural Development Programme(2001-2006)

Agri-environment

ForestryLFAs

ESA OFSCMS WGS FWPS

Measures aimed at maintaining a viable farming communitywithin the LFAs, the conversation and enhancement of the

agri-environment and afforestation of agricultural land Measures aimed at improving the competitiveness and efficiency of the agri-food industry though financial support and competence development,afforestation of non-agricultural land, as well as the wider economic

development and diversification of the rural economy

NI rural policy

ERDF, ESF and FIFG

EU measures linked to ruralpolicy

Rural Development Measures

BSP INTERREGIIIA

Leader+Peace II

3


• Community Regeneration &Improvement Special Programme(CRISP): Introduced in 1990 toencourage a partnership approachto regeneration and reconciliation,the CRISP Programme comprises avariety of Fund schemes for thecommunity-led economic andphysical regeneration of towns andvillages with a population of up to10,000 and in areas of particulardisadvantage in Northern Ireland.In the operation of CRISP, the Fundis partnered by the Department forSocial Development;

• Rural Development Programme(RDP): The Rural DevelopmentProgramme complements theCRISP Programme by supportingcommunity-led projects thatstimulate the economic and socialregeneration of the mostdisadvantaged rural areas inNorthern Ireland and the Southernborder counties. The RuralDevelopment Programme isadministered in Northern Ireland,by the Department of Agricultureand Rural Development and theRural Development Council and inthe Republic of Ireland by theDepartment of Community, Ruraland Gaeltacht Affairs; and

• Tourism Programme: The objectiveof the Tourism Programme is toencourage economic regenerationby stimulating private sectorinvestment in the provision andupgrading of touristaccommodation and amenities andby supporting tourism marketingand human resource developmentinitiatives. Administered by theNorthern Ireland Tourist Board, theprogramme focuses on tourismprojects that demonstrate acapacity to create employment,encourage cross-border and cross-community activities, and are botheconomically and environmentallysustainable. While the Programmesupports wider tourism

development two initiatives focuson rural areas in particular:

Rural Cottages: This Programmetargets the renovation of singlederelict, vernacular buildings tohelp increase the potential oftourism in rural areas; and

Small Hotels Initiative: A specialinitiative providing assistancetowards the improvement ofaccommodation for small hotels inselected coastal/rural areas withtourism potential.

Funding post-20061.10 Across the EU the fundingenvironment post 2006 is currently beingdebated and a number of financialproposals have been presented fordecision. Changes in regard to theStructural Funds (ERDF, ESF, FIFG andEAGGF-Guidance) and the CommunityInitiatives (Leader, INTERREG, Urban andEqual) are outlined in the Third CohesionReport and proposals for CAP funding andother EU funds are set out in theCommission’s July 2004 publication of thedraft ‘Financial Perspectives’ for 2006-13.Significantly, the Financial Perspectivesinclude proposals to bring together CAPPillars 1 and 2 and fisheries andenvironmental funds into a new single ruralfund from which future rural developmentactivities will be supported. Following onfrom this, a draft of a new RuralDevelopment Regulation (No. 490/2004)has been issued by the Commission forconsideration and debate by the MemberStates which is timetabled to be agreed in2005.

‘One fund, one programme, one control.This is the principle of a new, moreefficient, coherent and visible ruraldevelopment policy’

Source: Brussels, 15 July 2004 - Franz Fischler, Commissioner forAgriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries.

1.11 The new Rural DevelopmentRegulation makes provision for one RuralDevelopment Programme for NorthernIreland that will encompass the RuralDevelopment Regulation Plan

(accompanying measures) and the type ofrural development actions currentlysupported through LEADER +, BSP, andPEACE II (non-accompanying measures).Although only a draft proposal from theCommission at this stage, the implicationsof one rural development programme interms of future policy directions for NI aredebated in Section VIII: Future Directions.

Terms of reference1.12 DARD in consultation with the RuralStakeholders Forum commissionedPricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to conducta study to provide an important input to areview of the Department’s RuralDevelopment Policy. The membership ofthe Rural Stakeholders Forum issummarised in Table 1.1. A sub-group ofthe Rural Stakeholders Forum wasconvened as a smaller ‘operational-level’Project Steering Group to oversee thestudy.

1.13 Announcing the study in March2004, Ian Pearson, MP, Minister ofAgriculture and Rural Development said:‘Existing policy has remained largelyunaltered since the early 1990’s and,given the changes which have occurred,and are anticipated, in the EU policy andfunding context, I feel that the time is rightfor a fundamental look at our policy in thisarea.’

1.14 The Terms of Reference require astudy of policy in relation to ruraldevelopment, which is defined as allresponsibilities currently embraced underthe core RDP and other EU measureslinked to rural development (e.g. SecondPillar). Following on from this, the Terms ofReference require the development ofproposals for policy change and anassessment of the opportunity for anoverarching rural development strategy.

Our understanding of theterms of reference1.15 There is complexity and thepotential for differing interpretations of theterminology ‘rural policy’. In view of this, atthe outset of the assignment, the PwCteam initiated a scoping exercise

4


(Appendix A). The purpose of this scopingexercise was to seek precise agreementwith the Project Steering Group about whatis currently ‘embraced under the coreDARD Rural Development Programme andother EU measures’ and therefore thefocus for the study.

1.16 The key questions posed within thecontext of the scoping exercise includedthe following:

• What is currently embraced underthe core DARD Rural DevelopmentProgramme?

• What is included under the RuralDevelopment Regulation Plan?

• What other measures (excludingthe above) are linked to ruraldevelopment?

• What is excluded from this study(e.g. Measures linked to the FirstPillar)?

1.17 The following paragraphs outlinethe responses to each of the fourquestions above in order to provide clarity,with respect to the precise scope of thestudy.

DARD Rural DevelopmentProgramme1.18 The NI Rural DevelopmentProgramme 2001–2006 focuses on fivekey elements:

1. Capacity Building;2. Local Regeneration Projects and

Programmes;3. Sectoral and Area Based

Development Projects andProgrammes;

4. Micro Business Development; and5. Natural Resource Rural Tourism.

1.19 The NI Rural DevelopmentProgramme is funded through an array ofEU Programmes and respective Measuresas shown in Table 1.2. The details onthese so called ‘non accompanying’measures are outlined in the NICommunity Support Framework 2000-2006.

NI Rural DevelopmentRegulation Plan 2000–20061.20 The NI Rural DevelopmentRegulation Plan was developed for theperiod 2000-2006 in response to EU RuralDevelopment Regulation (No. 1257/99).The Plan covers the Agri Environment

Schemes, Less Favoured Areas, andForestry.

1.21 The Agri Environment Scheme hasthree elements:

1. Environmentally Sensitive Areas(ESAs): these are designatedstretches of land where traditionalfarming practices have helped tocreate an attractive landscape andvaluable wildlife habitats. Thisvoluntary scheme encouragesfarmers, who own land within anESA boundary, to adopt or continuewith environmentally sensitivefarming methods. There are fiveESAs in NI covering approximately20% of the land area, including theMournes/ Slieve Croob and theSperrins. The ESA scheme providesannual hectarage payments for thewhole farm and currently just over4,500 farmers participate in thescheme;

2. Countryside ManagementScheme (CMS); this is a voluntaryscheme which encourages farmersand landowners to adopt orcontinue with environmentallysensitive farming methods. TheCountryside Management Schemeprovides annual hectaragepayments for the whole farm. TheCMS is open to farmers outsidethe ESAs with at least one hectareof land; and

3. Organic Farming Scheme (OFS);this offers financial aid toproducers who convert fromconventional to organic farming.This voluntary scheme encouragesfarmers to convert to organicfarming and to develop organicfarming systems.

1.22 The funds for Less Favoured Areasare to support and maintain traditionalagriculture in disadvantaged areas, which,because of their location, climate andtopography, would otherwise be vulnerableto economic decline and depopulation. TheLFA Scheme is open to farmers who keep

Table 1.1: Membership of the Rural Stakeholders Forum and Project Steering Group

ORGANISA TION CONTACT NAME SF PSGDARD - Policy & Economics Division Tom Stainer ✓ ✓DARD - Policy Development Branch Elaine McCrory ✓ ✓DARD - Rural Development Division Pauline McCloy ✓ ✓DARD - CAP Reform Branch Norman Fulton ✓DARD - Central Policy Group Tony McCusker ✓DARD - Central Support & Co-ordination Branch Damien Kerr ✓DARD - Countryside Management Branch Harry Gracey ✓DARD - Education Services Ian Titterington ✓DARD - Environmental Policy Branch Ian McKee ✓DARD - Farm, Food & Environmental Policy David Small ✓DARD - Financial Services Rodney Scott ✓DARD - Food, Environment and Central Services Division John Speers ✓DARD - Service Delivery Group Roy McClenaghan ✓Rural Community Network (RCN) Niall Fitzduff ✓ ✓Rural Development Council (RDC) Martin McDonald ✓ ✓Ulster Farmers Union (UFU) Clarke Black ✓ ✓Ulster Wildlife Trust (UWT) Dermot Hughes ✓ ✓Countryside Alliance Ronan Gorman ✓Friends of the Earth Lisa Fagan ✓Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association (NIAPA) Sean Clarke ✓Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Giles Knight ✓

5


breeding sheep and/ or suckler cows onforage areas within designated LFAs.

1.23 The Forestry schemes offerfarmers financial aid to grow trees and arepositioned as a means of both providingan alternative source of income for thefarmer and enhancing the farmenvironment. DARD offers two forestrygrant schemes namely the:

• Woodland Grant Scheme (WGS);which encourages the creation andmanagement of woodlands andforests. The Scheme is open toowners/occupiers of agriculturalland of at least 0.2 hectares; and• Farm Woodland PremiumScheme (FWPS); this schemeencompasses the planting of farmwoodlands in order to improve thelandscape, provide new habitatsand increase biodiversity. It aims toprovide farmers with ongoingincome to compensate foragricultural income foregonethrough participation in thescheme. The scheme is open toowners/occupiers of agriculturalland participating in the WoodlandGrant Scheme with at least 1hectare of eligible land.

Other BSP and Peace IImeasures (excluding the above)linked to rural development

1.24 Based on the DARD2 summary, theother measures linked to ruraldevelopment fall under the remit of PeaceII and BSP as detailed in Table 1.3.

Schemes excluded from thestudy1.25 The EU schemes which fall outsidethe remit of the study, are those linked tothe First Pillar of CAP, which include:

• Suckler Cow Premium Scheme;• Beef Special Premium Scheme;• Extensification Payment Scheme;

Table 1.2: DARD’s Rural Development Programme

INITIATIVE SPECIFIC MEASURES FIT WITHIN RDP

Peace II • M1.2b: Sustainable Tourism Development based on shared (1) Capacity Buildingnatural and cultural resources (Natural Resource Rural Tourism) (2) Local• M1.7: Diversification of agricultural activities and activities close Regenerationto agriculture to provide multiple activities or alternative incomes (3) Sectoral and Area(Rural Employment Opportunities Programme) Based• M1.10: Basic services for the rural economy and population (5) Natural Resource(Rural Retail Programme) Rural Tourism

Projects• M2.9 Renovation and development of villages and protection andconservation of the rural heritage (Broadening the Framework;Developing Civic Society; A Peaceful Environment; Promoting SafeCommunities; Rural Mediation Service; and Village Halls Advisory Service)• M2.10: Encouragement for tourist and craft activities (Local Identity,Heritage & Culture)• M4.2b: Enhancing the region as a tourism destination• M5.6: Agriculture and rural development Cross-border co-operation(Cross-border Community Development)

Building • M4.4 Setting up Farm Relief and Farm Management Service (1) Capacity BuildingSustainable • M4.6 Basic Services for the Rural Economy and PopulationProsperity • M4.7 Renovation and Development of Villages & Protection and

Conservation of the Rural Heritage• M4.8 Diversification of agricultural activities and activities close toagriculture to provide multiple activities and alternative incomes• M4.9 Development and Improvement of Infrastructure connected withthe Development of Agriculture• M4.10 Encouragement for Tourist and Craft activities• M4.11 Protection of the environment in connection with agriculture,forestry and landscape conservation as well as the improvement ofanimal welfare• M4.12 Financial Engineering.

LEADER+ • All Measures (4) Micro BusinessDevelopment

INTERREG IIIA • M1.4 Rural Development Initiatives (2) LocalRegenerationProjects

Peace II • M1.6: Training for farmers (Information Communication Technology (ICT) for Agriculture)(Model Units) (Supplier Group Facilitation)• M1.7: Diversification of agricultural activities and activities close to agriculture toprovide multiple activities or alternative incomes (Obtaining Alternative Employment)• M1.9: Investment in Agricultural Holdings• M1.10: Basic services for the rural economy and population (InformationCommunication Technology (ICT) Development)• M5.6: Agriculture and rural development Cross-border co operation (Cross-borderDiversification)• M5.7 Cross border fishing and aquaculture co-operation (this is funded through FIGFGand not EAGGF, however, is linked to rural development

Building • M4.1 TrainingSustainable • M4.2a Improving Processing & Marketing of Agricultural Products (Processing andProsperity Marketing Grant Scheme)

• M4.3 Forestry (WGS Establishment Grants) (WGS Woodland Improvement Grant andSustainable Forestry Operations Grant)• M4.5 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products (Marketing of Quality AgriculturalProducts) • M4.13a – M4.13j Fisheries Schemes (Fishing Vessels DecommissioningScheme), (Safety Equipment Scheme), (Small scale and coastal fishing grants), (Scrapand Build), (Marketing and Quality on board fishing vessels), (Improvement of facilities atNI fishing ports), (Aquaculture), (Processing and marketing of freshwater and marineproducts), (Joint Marketing Initiative)

Table 1.3: Other measures linked to rural development

2 Summary of EU Funded Assistance to the Agri-food, Forestry,Fisheries and Rural Development Sectors 2000-2006

6


• Slaughter Premium Scheme;• De-seasonalisation Premium

Scheme;• Sheep Annual Premium Scheme;

and• Arable Area Payments Scheme.

1.26 Given that the Terms of Referencefocus on the core DARD RuralDevelopment Programme and other EUmeasures, the important activities fundedby the IFI are referred to as appropriatethroughout this report.

Conclusions from the‘scoping exercise’1.27 The conclusion from the scopingexercise is that ‘rural policy’, as definedby the Terms of Reference for this study,incorporates the following:

• BSP [certain Measures];• PEACE II [certain Measures];• Leader+ (whilst Leader is not part

of the Second Pillar, it is fundedthrough EAGGF and remains aseparate EC instrument and ishighly relevant to ruraldevelopment);

• INTERREG III [Measure 1.4]; (whilstthis is not part of the Second Pillarit is funded through by the ERDFand focuses on rural developmentinitiatives);

• Agri Environment Schemes(ESA,CMS and OFS);

• Less Favoured Areas; and• Forestry (WGS and FWPS).

1.28 The study does not specificallycover elements funded under the FirstPillar of the CAP or rural developmentactivities funded by the IFI or otherGovernment Departments. However whereappropriate these are mentioned in thecontext of this review.

Methodology1.29 Figure 1.4 provides a summary ofour understanding of the aims andobjectives of the study. In the interests ofsimplicity these are grouped under fourheadings or domains, namely: Rationale,Need, Impact and Recommendations.These domains were carried through to all

the research instruments employed withinthe study, in order to structure theconsultation input within a consistentframework.

1.30 An overview of the methodologyemployed within the study is illustrated inFigure 1.5.

Literature review/ desk-basedreview1.31 The first stage of our approachentailed conducting a comprehensive androbust literature review, including thosedocuments highlighted in the terms ofreference. The main aim of the literaturereview was to provide a concise summaryof the relevant findings from previous

evaluations of component parts of theRural Development Programme (bothphases 1994–99 and 2000–2006) andother research in the rural domain in NI(e.g. including the work of the Urban/RuralDefinition Group). In addition itencompassed reviews of rural policyelsewhere, to highlight in particular, thelessons learned and whether these areapplicable or relevant to Northern Ireland.Finally it also involved a review of socio-economic indicators for rural areas of NI inorder to inform the debate about theneeds of rural areas. A full list of thedocuments reviewed is contained withinAppendix B.

Figure 1.4: Key questions posed by the Terms of Reference

Rationale

Need

Impact

Recommendations

•What is rural? Do we need a rural policy?

•Is there a market failure / need for Government intervention?

•What are the main needs of rural areas? For example – Economic;Social; and Environmental

•How effective has existing / recent policy been?

•What should the future policy be?

•How should it be implemented?

Figure 1.5: Overview of our approach

Literature Review / Desk based review

Consultations

Analysis and Reporting

Key informantinterviews

ConsultationConference

WrittenSubmissions

Ongoing client m

eetings

7


Soundings1.32 The soundings exerciseencompassed a range of mechanisms inorder to ensure maximum opportunity forindividuals to feed into this importantstudy. All soundings were based around adefined ‘issues paper’ (Appendix C) whichwas structured around the Terms ofReference and agreed with the ProjectSteering Group in light of the scopingexercise. Through the various mechanismsaround 250 individuals and/ororganisations have had an opportunity toinput into the study.

Key informant interviews1.33 A number of face-to-face interviewswere undertaken to includerepresentatives from the followingorganisations:

• Department of Agriculture andRural Development;

• All individual members of RuralStakeholders Forum;

• The Review of Public Administration(RPA) team;

• Queen’s University School ofEnvironmental Planning;

• NISRA; and• Permanent Secretaries and Senior

Teams from GovernmentDepartments (DARD; DCAL; DE;DEL; DETI; DFP; DHSSPS; DOE;DRD; DSD; and OFMDFM).

1.34 In addition a briefing meeting washeld with the Minister for Agriculture andRural Development at the commencementof the review.

1.35 Focus groups were held withvarious organisations and representativebodies as set out below. The format ofthese was a presentation outlining thestudy followed by group discussion basedaround the ‘issues paper’.

• DARD Rural Development Division(RDD);

• LEADER Network;• Rural Support Network Project

Officers;• RCN Board members;• RDC Board members;• UFU Board/Rural Development

Sub-committee;• Newry Socio Economic Forum; and• Rural Women’s Think Tank.

Conference1.36 A conference event was held on15th June 2004 and was attended by 110delegates. The format of the eventconsisted of a number of presentations bykey speakers and three workshopsessions around the themes of theeconomic; social and environmental needsof rural areas. The agenda for the event isset out in Figure 1.6. Following the event,feedback from the workshops was issuedto all those who attended (110 delegates)and also those who indicated that theywere unable to attend (approximately 200

further individuals). Over 300 feedbacknotes were sent out.

Written submissions1.37 In addition requests for writtensubmissions were issued to all thoseinvited to the conference plus:

• Northern Ireland Members of theEuropean Parliament (MEP) (pastand present);

• Members of NI LegislativeAssembly (MLAs); and

• Northern Ireland Members ofParliament (MP).

1.38 Written responses (either via postor the project team’s e-mail [email protected]) have been

Figure 1.6: Agenda for Conference 15/6/04

A study on rural development policy in Northern IrelandTuesday 15th June 2004 – Rural College, Draperstown

DARD Review of Rural Development Policy in Northern Ireland

Rural College, DraperstownTuesday, 15th June 200410:00am – 1:45pm

POHSKROW–ADNEGAWEIVREVO

weiverotdnuorgkcabdnanoitcudortnI DRAD/CwP

gnineppahsitahw–lanoitanretnidnaUE?erehwesle

,tinUhcraeseRytinummoC&edisyrtnuoCerihsretsecuolGfoytisrevinU

INfosaeralarurnoevitcepsrepcimonocenAsdnerterutufdnatnerruc–

CwP

larurnoevitcepsrepytinummoc/laicosAseussitnempoleved

BUQ/CwP

larurnoevitcepsreplatnemnorivnenAseussitnempoleved

,tinUhcraeseRytinummoC&edisyrtnuoCerihsretsecuolGfoytisrevinU

EEFFOC

tuokaerB•kcabdeeF•:spohskroW

snoissespuorggnikrow’tuo-kaerb‘eerhT,cimonocefosemehtehtdnuoraderutcurts

fosevitcepsreplatnemnorivnednalaicostnempolevedlarur

sredaelpohskroW

skrameRgnisolC/kcabdeeF DRAD/CwP

8


Table 1.4: Terms of Reference and report structure

TERMS OF REFERENCE PRESENTATION

IN REPORT

Take account of other relevant reviews and reports; for example, the evaluation of thelast Rural Development Programme (1994 – 1999), the joint RCN/RDC paper(March 2003), the ‘Picture of Rural Change Reports 2002 and 2003 (RDC)’ and‘The Future of Rural Society’ (EU, 1988). Section II, IV

and VISuitably define “Rural” using an agreed rationale and taking account of recent NorthernIreland Statistical Research Agency (NISRA) led work and rural topology analysisdeveloped by RDC and a range of partners. Section III

Establish and define the nature of the main rural economic, environmental and socialneeds and subsequent scope for a rural policy using the steps laid out in Paragraph 12of the Scoping Paper. Section IV

Establish a rationale for Government involvement in managing and implementing a ruraldevelopment policy. Section V

Assess the effectiveness of current rural development policy in addressing the needs ofrural society. Section VI

Examine the strategic approach taken to rural development in other parts of UK and EUand assess for possible application in NI. Section VII

Propose any changes needed to present rural development policy that could improveeffectiveness and efficiency in tackling problems faced by rural society. Section VIII

Consider the structures needed for the effective delivery of a rural policy including ruralcommunity infrastructure. Section VIII

Consider funding arrangements including the possible effects on funding of the endingof Objective I status, EU enlargement and UK regional policy. Section VIII

Identify where and how Government policies need to be better integrated to make apositive contribution to tackling key rural issues. Section VIII

received from various organisations andthese are listed in Appendix D.

Analysis and reporting1.39 The findings from the literaturereview and the soundings process to datewere assessed in compiling this report.

Report structure1.40 This report is structured aroundthe Terms of Reference as summarised inTable 1.4.

9


2 History of rural development policy

Introduction2.1 This section sets out a broadhistory of the CAP and the move towardsintegrated rural development under theconcept of the Second Pillar of the CAP. Inaddition, it sets out an overview of thehistory of rural development in NI andassesses the impact of the evolution ofthe Structural Funds on rural developmentin NI. Finally, the section sets out anumber of wider cross-cutting governmentpolicies and initiatives which are ofparticular relevance to the rural policyarena.

History of EU ruraldevelopment2.2 The European Union grew out ofthe European Coal and Steel Community(ECSC), which was founded by the then sixmember states (Belgium, Netherlands,Luxembourg, West Germany, France andItaly). Following the 1957 Treaty of Romethe European Community (EC) wasestablished to create a customs unionamong the six founding members, basedon the ‘four freedoms’: freedom ofmovement of goods, services, capital andpeople.

2.3 Essential agreements in the Treatyof Rome included the adoption of theCommon Agricultural Policy (CAP). With theaim of financing the CAP, the EAGGF wasestablished in 1962. The objectives of theCAP, as set out in Article 39 of the Treatyof Rome, were to:

• Increase agricultural productivity bypromoting technical progress andby ensuring the rationaldevelopment of agriculturalproduction and the optimumutilisation of the factors ofproduction, in particular labour;

• Ensure a fair standard of living forthe agricultural community, inparticular by increasing theindividual earnings of personsengaged in agriculture;

• StabÒlise markets;• Assure the availability of supplies;

and• Ensure that supplies reach

consumers at reasonable prices.Source: EUROPA, 20011

2.4 The CAP meant that the then sixmember states were to be stronglyaffected by state intervention, inparticular, with regard to what wasproduced, intervention prices and farmstructures. The introduction of the CAP in1960 was based on the following threeprinciples of:

• A single market; this denotes thefree movement of agriculturalproducts within the area of theMember States;

• Community preference; this meansthat EU agricultural products aregiven preference and a priceadvantage over imported products;and

• Common financing; all expensesand spending which result from theapplication of the CAP are borne bythe Community budget.

Source: EUROPA, 2001

2.5 The early focus of the CAP was onimproving agricultural productivity andsupporting farm structural change andmodernisation. Whilst the CAP was verysuccessful, by the 1980s, the EU had tocontend with almost permanent surplusesof the major farm commodities, some ofwhich were exported (with the help ofsubsidies), and others of which had to bestored or disposed of within the EU. Thesemeasures had a high budgetary cost,distorted some world markets, did notalways serve the best interests of farmersand became unpopular with consumersand taxpayers. The cost of thesesurpluses, the external tradingenvironment, concerns about food safetyand animal welfare and a growingawareness of environmental issues led tosuccessive reforms of the CAP (includingthe introduction of milk quotas in 1984).

2.6 By the mid 1980s the EUmembership had expanded with theinclusion of UK, Denmark and Ireland in1975 and Greece in 1981. The Single

European Act, which came into force in1987, constituted a significant effort tomove towards economic and socialcohesion across the EU in particular inlight of recent expansion to the EU12 toinclude Spain and Portugal. This expansionin 1986 led to widening regional economicdisparities across the EU. In an attempt toreduce such disparities there was a majorreform of the EC Structural Funds, whichwere, and are, the:

• European Social Fund (ESF); theESF introduced in 1958 aims toimprove employment opportunitiesin the European Union by providingfinancial support towards therunning costs for vocationaltraining schemes, guidance andcounselling projects, job creationmeasures and other steps toimprove the employability and skillsof both employed and unemployedpeople;

• European Regional DevelopmentFund (ERDF); the ERDF wasestablished in 1975 and is aimedat reducing regional imbalancesand assisting disadvantagedregions, particularly, run-downareas facing restructuring problemsand industrial decline and ruralareas; and

• European Agricultural Guidanceand Guarantee Fund (EAGGF);established in 1958, the EAGGFfinances the common organisationof the agricultural markets, theprocessing of agricultural productsand the structure of agriculturalholdings. The Guidance element ofthis fund is one of the EUStructural Funds and is governedby regulations common to allStructural Funds, while theGuarantee element is not.

2.7 The publication by the EuropeanCommission in 1988‘The Future of RuralSociety’ recommended that the thrust ofEU regional policy should be an integratedapproach based on indigenous resources.This signalled the intention to move1 EUROPA (2001) Activities of the European Union – Summaries of

legislation

10


beyond the focus on agriculture as asector and to focus on rural areas as awhole. The 1998 structural fund reformsbrought about fundamental changes in theoperation of these funds, stressing fourkey principles: concentration, partnership,programming, and additionality. Oneimportant consequence of the newemphasis on concentration was thedesignation of a number of regions asspecific ‘Objective regions’ where thepursuit of certain Objectives wasgeographically bound. In particular theperiod 1988-94 saw Objective 1 regions(those with GDP/head less than 75% ofthe EU average) receiving ruraldevelopment funds, and this geographicalapproach was expanded to includeObjective 1, 2, 5b and 6 regions under the1994-99 round of structural funds, witheach Objective targeting separately definedareas. However, other Structural FundObjectives 3, 4 and 5a focussed onspecific issues including unemployment,training and farm structural change(including support for Less FavouredAreas) and for these, the entire EU areawas potentially eligible (as shown in Table2.1). Northern Ireland under the 1998-93and 1994-99 rounds of Structural Fundswas allocated Objective 1 status andbenefited from a range of multi-annual

programmes and community initiatives. Inaddition, the Leader initiative wasintroduced, with the aim of stimulatinginnovative rural development initiatives ata local level. The first LEADER initiative(LEADER I) was launched across Objective1 areas of the EU in 1991, and LEADER IIprogrammes in all ‘Objective regions’ in1994-99. Overall, there was a strongemphasis within ‘The Future of RuralSociety’ on the involvement of localgroups, participation and verticalpartnerships. The Commission stipulatedthat programmes be integrated acrosssectors which marked an emphasis onmoving away from sectoral support to anarea based support.

2.8 The CAP reform in 1992, alsoreferred to as the ‘MacSharry reforms’,led to a significant shift from agriculturalmarket support to direct payments tofarmers. In addition and of most relevanceto rural development, it led to theintroduction of so-called ‘accompanyingmeasures’ also funded through the EAGGFGuarantee budget. These covered agri-environment measures, early retirementincentives, and farmland afforestationmeasures. In November 1997 theAgriculture Council of Ministers defined theEuropean model of agriculture as having a

multi-functional role including maintainingthe countryside, conserving nature,contributing to the vitality of rural life,responding to consumer concerns anddemands regarding food quality and safety,protecting the environment andsafeguarding animal welfare.

2.9 Therefore from an EU perspective,the shift to a more integrated anddevolved approach to rural developmentbegan in the late 1980s and gatheredpace through the following decade.

2.10 A more strategic debate for anintegrated rural development policy wasorchestrated by the then EU AgricultureCommissioner, Mr Fischler, at the 1996Cork Conference ‘A Living Countryside’.At the Conference, he argued:

‘The services provided by rural areas forthe environment, society and the economyin Europe must be safeguarded for thefuture and developed. This can only bedone with an integrated rural developmentpolicy that eliminates weaknesses andpromote strengths in a sustainablemanner’.

Source: Cork Conference 1996

2.11 At this conference, a ten-pointrural development programme for the EU,

Figure 2.1: Ten point rural development programme proposed through the Cork Declaration 1996

Cork Declaration 1996

1. Rural Preference; sustainable rural development must beput at the top of the agenda of the European Union, and

become the fundamental principle which underpins all ruralpolicy in the immediate future and after enlargement.

2. Integrated Approach; rural developmentpolicy must be multi-disciplinary in concept,

and multi-sectoral in application, with aclear territorial dimension.

3. Diversification; support for diversification of economicand social activity must focus on providing the framework

for self-sustaining private and community-based initiatives.

4. Sustainability; policies should promote ruraldevelopment which sustains the quality and amenity of rurallandscapes, so that their use by today's generation does not

prejudice the options for future generations.

5. Integrated Approach; rural developmentpolicy must be multi-disciplinary in concept, and

multi-sectoral in application, with a clearterritorial dimension.

6. Simplification; rural development policy,notably in its agricultural component, needs toundergo radical simplification in legislation.

7. Programming; the application of rural developmentprogrammes must be based on coherent and transparent

procedures, and integrated into one single programme forrural development for each region.

8. Finance; the use of local financial resourcesmust be encouraged to promote local rural

development projects.

9. Management; the administrative capacity andeffectiveness of regional and local governments

and community-based groups must be enhanced.

10. Evaluation and Research; monitoring,evaluation and beneficiary assessment will

need to be reinforced in order to ensuretransparency.

11


as summarised in Figure 2.1 wasproposed. The Cork Declaration, as itbecame known, pointed towards anexpanded rural development programme toembrace ‘whole farmed countryside’rather than focusing on specific geographiczones and encompassed the idea of‘sustainable and integrated ruraldevelopment’.

2.12 Some of the principles set out inthe Cork Declaration (which was neverformally ratified by the Council ofMinisters) have been achieved over theyears such as subsidiarity (e.g. throughthe LEADER approach) and sustainability(e.g. through the Agenda 2000 reformsenvironmental objectives have beenstrengthened in the CAP, as discussed insubsequent paragraphs).

2.13 The Agenda 2000 CAP reformagreement was finalised by the EuropeanCouncil in March 1999. It was based onthe emerging concept of the Europeanmodel of agriculture and marked a furthersignificant shift in the focus of the CAP.These reforms reinforced the move tomake farmers more reliant on the marketand improved incentives to farm in anenvironmentally sensitive way. They alsocreated a major new element – the RuralDevelopment Regulation 1257/99, or so-called Second Pillar of the CAP, which washailed as a comprehensive ruraldevelopment policy encouraging manyrural initiatives while also helping farmersto diversify, to improve their productmarketing and to otherwise restructuretheir businesses. Therefore increasinglysince 2000, rural development hasbecome heavily associated with EUagricultural policy, in the form of theSecond Pillar of the CAP.

‘The First Pillar of CAP which had a narrowfocus on agricultural commodities andmarket management. The Second Pillar …moves beyond food production torecognise and support a much morediverse range of activities in rural areas.The real significance of this Second Pillar,more formally known as the RuralDevelopment Regulation (RDR) … provides

a real and much needed alternative to aproduction-focused EU farming policy’

Source: DG Agriculture2

2.14 The new Rural DevelopmentRegulation reflected the view that ruraldevelopment must become the‘fundamental principle’ which underpins allrural policy, and that this policy must bemulti-sectoral. It was recognised thatagriculture should no longer be treated inisolation, but must be given its place as avitally important part, but only a part, ofa wider policy on rural development.However, the result was regarded as lessradical than was envisaged in the CorkDeclaration.

2.15 The Rural Development Regulationprovided a ‘menu’ of measures, whichMember States/ regions could select fromin formulating their own Rural DevelopmentPlans. These were packaged together fromthe former 1992 CAP accompanyingmeasures, the former farm structuremeasures under Objective 5a, and certainrural development measures from theObjective 1 and Objective 5b programmesof the EU Structural Funds. Theycomprised respectively: the agri-environment, farmland afforestation andearly retirement measures, farminvestment aids, support for youngfarmers, processing and marketing grantsand LFA aids, and measures for training,other forestry actions and ‘the adaptationand development of rural areas’.

2.16 With Agenda 2000, theCommission revised its use of the term‘accompanying measures’ to include onlythose elements of the RDR which wouldhave to be financed using EAGGFGuarantee funds, from then on (as shownearlier in Figure 1.2). The remaining ‘non-accompanying measures’ of the RDR (forexample, those measures built in to thePeace II and BSP programmes in NI, asshown in Figure 1.2) would be financed by

EAGGF Guidance funds in Objective 1areas, and EAGGF Guarantee funds inother areas.

2.17 The Rural Development Regulationrequired each member state to produceRural Development Plans and Programmes(either a single national or several regionalprogrammes) setting out how all themeasures would be applied. Because ofits Objective 1 transitional status, NI hadto include its non-accompanying measureswithin the broader Structural Fundprogrammes for the region as governed bythe NI Community Support Framework anddetailed in Section I, while the new‘accompanying measures’ of LFA, agri-environment and afforestation aid werecovered by a separate Rural DevelopmentPlan for Northern Ireland.

2.18 The latest CAP reform (which isdiscussed further in Section VIII in thecontext of future directions) was agreedfollowing the so-called ‘mid-term review’ ofCAP in Luxembourg in 2003. This reformrepresents a complete change in the waythat the EU will support its farm sector.The different elements of the reform comeinto force in 2004 and 2005. Keyelements of the reformed CAP are asfollows:

• A single farm payment (SFP) for EUfarmers which will be independentfrom production and based uponhistoric receipts of aid. Paymentswill be linked to the respect ofenvironmental, food safety, animaland plant health and animalwelfare standards, as well as therequirement to keep all farmland ingood agricultural andenvironmental condition andobserve EU environment, healthand welfare regulations (‘cross-compliance’). The SFP is intendedto replace the existing mainsupport schemes which wereoutlined in Section I and includearable, beef and sheep supportschemes; as well as increasinglycovering dairy farms, asguaranteed prices in this sectorare cut and partial compensation2 European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture,

(2000) CAP Reform: Rural Development

12


is made available to them.Importantly, individual MemberStates do not all have to introducethe SFP at the same time, nor tothe same extent, and the retentionof direct payments is permitted forsome sectors. However, throughoutthe UK, governments have optedfor full adoption of the SFP from 1January 2005; and

• A strengthened rural developmentpolicy, promoting the environment,quality and animal welfare andhelping farmers to meet EUproduction standards, as a resultof increased funds. Starting in2005 there will be a reduction inSFP (‘modulation’) for bigger farmsto finance the rural developmentpolicy, of 3% initially, rising to 5%over 2 years. This will result in aslow and gradual increase in fundsfor the RDR (some e1.2billion peryear3). However, the overall budgetfor rural development over the nextprogramming period (2007-13)remains to be decided. The future

EU budget, discussed in the‘Financial Perspectives’ proposalsfor the period 2007–2013 issubject to heated debate betweenthe Member States and until this isagreed (possibly later in 2005), thetotal RDR budget and its allocationbetween Member States will not becertain. In addition the funds willbe allocated amongst 25 memberstates as opposed to the previous15 member states and thusfunding will be ‘spread more thinly’.

Salzburg Conference and relatedactivity2.19 The concept of a strengthenedrural development policy was debated atthe 2003 Salzburg Conference ‘PlantingSeeds for Rural Futures’ which was afollow-on to the 1996 Cork Conference andwas organised and hosted by the EuropeanCommission. The main aim of theConference was to assess the

implementation of EU rural policy sinceAgenda 2000 and to look ahead to thenext generation of rural developmentprogrammes under the Second Pillar ofCAP for the period 2007–2013. Theprinciples agreed at Salzburg and the keyconclusions from the conference are setout in Figure 2.2 and mirror those of theCork Declaration including issuesassociated with simplification andpartnerships. These principles were notentirely new, rather they built on aspects ofthe Cork Declaration.

2.20 Interestingly these conclusionsfrom the Salzburg Conference resonatestrongly with many of the key issuesidentified for a rural policy in NI from theconsultation process. As such,components of these inform thediscussion in Section VIII: Way Forwardand Future Directions particularly inrespect of the ‘criteria’ that could be usedto shortlist future options with respect torural policy in NI.

2.21 An independent Conference ofPeripheral Maritime Regions of Europe in

Figure 2.2: Principles endorsed at Salzburg Conference 2003

3 www.europa.eu.int ‘The common agricultural policy – A policyevolving with the times’

1. A living countryside is not only inthe interests of the rural society but

also of society as a whole...

2. Preserving the diversity of Europe’s countryside andencouraging the services provided by multifunctional

agriculture is of ever growing importance, particularlyin more remote rural areas with their sites of high

nature value.

3. The competitiveness of the farming sector must bea key aim, taking into account the diversity of

agricultural potential in different rural areas…..andeconomic growth must come increasingly through thediversification, innovation and value added products.

4. Rural development policy must apply in allrural areas of the enlarged EU in order thatfarmers and other rural actors can meet thechallenges of on-going restructuring of the

agricultural sector, the effects of CAP reformand changing patterns of agricultural trade.

5. Rural development policy must serve the needs of broadersociety in rural areas and contribute to cohesion. Strengthening

the wider rural community will promote the sustainabledevelopment of rural areas sought by all rural stakeholders.

6. . Rural development policy should beimplemented in partnership between public and

private organisations and civil society in line withthe principle of subsidiarity…future policy mustmainstream EU support for rural areas throughbottom-up local partnerships by building on the

lessons learnt from the LEADER approach.

8. A significant simplification of EU ruraldevelopment policy is both necessary and

urgent. Delivery must be based on oneprogramming, financing and control systemtailored to the needs of rural development.

7. More responsibility must be given toprogramme partnerships to define and deliver

comprehensive strategies based on clearlydefined objectives and outcomes.

Salzburg Principles 2003

13


April 2004 argued the need for a singleprogramme for rural areas; and the needfor rural policy to incorporate the needs ofbroader rural society (‘not just farmers’),for example, through extending the rangeof measures beyond agriculture under thecurrent Article 33 of the RuralDevelopment Regulation. One messagefrom this Conference made by ProfessorJoe Mannion, UCD, was that ‘a farm basedpolicy for the development of rural areaswill not be sufficient’.

2.22 A related conference was theCooperation Forum on Rural Developmentin an Enlarged Europe in June 2004 whichgathered in Cáceres (Spain) to debaterural policy in an enlarged Europe. Theconference resulted in the CáceresDeclaration (see Figure 2.3) being signedby delegates and reflected agreement onthe need to move towards a broader ruralpolicy throughout an enlarged Europe.

2.23 More recently between 30th May –1st June 2004, a conference was held inWestport, Ireland. This conference heldunder the Presidency of Ireland of the EU

was entitled ‘Improving living conditionsand quality of life in rural Europe’. Theconference, whilst highlighting many of thematters raised at previous conferences,emphasised the continuing significance ofagriculture in the European context andspecifically with reference to rural regions.It also however, highlighted that ruralregions were experiencing rapid economicrestructuring as they became more alignedto the EU economy. This resulted in thecontraction of agriculture and a growth inmanufacturing and services activities. Thisraised significant questions regarding theefficacy of the current EU ruraldevelopment policy instrument in deliveringsupport to rural regions.

2.24 Particular reference was made tothe rethinking which had taken place in theEU as a consequence of the enlargementprocess and also of the dramatic changestaking place in relation to agriculture andrural regions. It was recognised that it wasless appropriate to talk about core andperiphery but rather to have a discussionwithin the concept of a multi-layeredEurope where regions were not simply

defined by their location. The balancebetween competitiveness and primaryresources development whilst meeting thedemand for public goods such asenvironmental protection, food quality andsafety and accessibility of ruralpopulations to key services were matterswhich were discussed at some length.

2.25 Reference was made to thelessons for a ‘new rural Europe’. Inparticular, LEADER processes wereperceived by local actors as a strongcontribution to the sustainabledevelopment of rural areas. Thepartnership aspect was stressed togetherwith the opportunity for real innovation totake place in the context of localresources. The so called ‘LEADERapproach’ was attributed with manybenefits deriving from the characteristicsassociated with an area based approach,including bottom-up involvement,participation through partnership,networking, decentralised managementand financing, co-operation and multi-sectoral integration.

Figure 2.3: Summary of principles from the Cáceres Declaration 2004

1. Broader approach to rural development; until now, rural developmenthas been treated as an adjunct of agricultural policy, in the form of the 2nd

Pillar of the CAP, however, this approach is no longer sufficient. It mustbe recognised that agriculture is only one vital sector in rural economies

and that rural dwellers as a whole play a vital role in rural economies

2. Single Rural Development Fund; there is a need for a ‘true’European Rural Development Policy, with a Regulation which unifiesthe different existing programmes. This should be financed through asingle Fund, bringing together funding currently dedicated to rural

development programmes from EAGGF and Structural Funds.

3. Preparation of a European rural framework; the objectives ofEuropean Rural Policy should be pursued through the preparation of a

strategy framework, setting out the principles for rural development, andthe needs of rural areas. This would form the basis for the preparation

by member states of national and regional Rural DevelopmentStrategies, which should indicate clearly how the European Rural

Development Fund should be complemented with the other EUStructural Funds.

5.LEADER method should be continued 2007+; in particular: (a) a fixed % of the EARDF should be set aside to support the

LEADER approach (b) local partnerships and their programmes should be subject to

quality certification (c) for new member states, a % of funding should be allocated to

support capacity-building of LEADER-type partnerships (d) LEADER groups should have representation in the Advisory

Committee on Rural Development of the EC(e) a European Rural Observatory should be created with a widebrief to disseminate good practice in rural development.

6.Need to recognise role of civil society in rural policy; civil societyhas a vital role to play in influencing and implementing policy in

rural development throughout Europe.

4. Consider rural social and economic cohesion in distributing EARDF;all rural development activity should be pursued through territorially-

based local development programmes. These should be based directly onthe LEADER method. These programmes should be open to embraceaspects of the other the other two objectives of the Cohesion Report.

Cáceres Declaration 2004

14


2.26 It was also neverthelessrecognised that a number of challengesalso related to some of the LEADERfeatures. In particular, it was suggestedthat area based approaches may beconsidered too complex for particularagriculture support structures that aredelivered through large scale directpayments.

2.27 In addition, the bottom-upapproach which requires local participationand capacity building cannot only be timeconsuming but also require the investmentof resources over and above thoseassociated with a more directed approach.It was also recognised that a successfulLEADER approach depended upon localgroups and their capacity to develop andmanage within the context of localgovernment structures, non-departmentalpublic bodies and regional governmentstructures. Finally, it was also recognisedthat innovation was a vague concept andone that would not always be fullyunderstood or grasped in the context of arisk adverse environment.

2.28 Nevertheless, the EC officialspresent at the conference reflected on thebenefits that could be derived from suchan approach in the context of a future

single rural development programme. Theconcept of a single rural fund is discussedin detail in Section VIII.

2.29 The 2000–2006 period has seenthe Structural Funds and CAP begin tobenefit 25 member states, with theeastern enlargement of 10 new memberstates in 2004. This latest expansion hasresulted in four million new farmers in theEU. Modernizing and integrating them intothe reformed CAP will be a major challengein the coming years, as Franz Fischlerstated:

‘On May 1, when the European Uniontakes in ten new member states, the EUwill add four million farmers, mostly fromCentral Europe, to its farming population.… the membership in the EU will bringmany benefits, like rising levels of incomesupport, stable prices, and massiveassistance for restructuring andmodernization of their farming sectors. EUmeasures are also tailor-made to meet therural development needs of the newmember states.’

Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler, April 1, 2004, BrusselsSource: www.eurunion.org

Summary of the CAP reformsand impact on ruraldevelopment

2.30 The early CAP reflected the need tomaintain and increase food production,however, today the CAP involves muchmore than the payment of subsidies tofarmers to encourage food production andit is also aimed at helping farmers, viarural development measures, to adjusttheir businesses and land managementmethods to changing socio-economicconditions, and to society’s demands.

2.31 In overview, as a result of theseries of reforms since 1992, CAP supporthas been re-aligned. There is increasinglyless emphasis on production-relatedpayments and market supports within theFirst Pillar, (although these will remainimportant in the UK dairy sector, and inother sectors in some countries outsidethe UK and Ireland) and farmers willincreasingly be able to alter productionpatterns in response to market signalswithout affecting their CAP support.Meanwhile an increasing part of the CAPfinancial budget, which accounts for overhalf of the entire EU budget, is directedtowards rural development spending butthe overall proportional amount committedto rural development remains relativelysmall. The trend over the past decade isshown in Figure 2.4. It should be notedthat this figure does not incorporate theimpacts of the 2003 CAP reforms.

2.32 The ‘capture’ of rural developmentpolicy by the CAP impacts the use of fundsto support non-farming individuals andgroups. Under the Structural Fundsprogrammes, rural development includedboth farm and non-farm aids whereas infuture, all rural aids will come from thefarm budget. However, the CAP has beenbroadened so that it can now fund non-farm aids. The extent to which it actuallydoes this will depend largely upon thefuture choices of individual Member Statesabout how their Second Pillar programmeswill be designed.

Figure 2.4: Evolution of CAP

Source: www.europa.eu.int

0

10

20

30

40

50Ruraldevelopment

Directaids

Marketsupport

Exportsubsidies

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993

15


The origins of NI rural policy2.33 The origins of rural policy inNorthern Ireland can be traced back to themid 1980s. In 1985, as part of theEuropean Community’s Anti-PovertyProgramme, the voluntary and communitysector initiated the Rural Action Project todemonstrate the potential for ruraldevelopment in Northern Ireland. The foursponsoring organisations at the timeincluded the Northern Ireland VoluntaryTrust4, the Northern Ireland Council forVoluntary Action (NICVA), the NorthernIreland Rural Association and StrabaneCitizens Advice Bureau. The activity at thattime was funded by the Northern IrelandDepartment of Health and Social Serviceswith matched funding from the EC. The aimof the Rural Action Project was to:

• Identify major economic, social andcommunity needs of deprived ruralareas;

• Encourage more directparticipation by local communitiesin determining their own futures;and

• Inform decision makers of theresults of the work.

2.34 The report on the Rural ActionProject was published in 1989 andcombined with the publication of theEuropean Commission Report the ‘Futureof Rural Society’ in 1988, provokeddebate which led to the then Secretary ofState for Northern Ireland to establish anInter-Departmental Committee in 1990 tolook at the best way of carrying forwardaction to tackle the social and economicproblems in the most deprived rural areasin Northern Ireland. The Committeerecommended that:

• The Department of Agricultureshould become the leadDepartment responsible fortackling the needs of the mostdisadvantaged rural areas;

• The Department of Agricultureshould appoint a small team oflocal co-ordinators from across thepublic sector to co-ordinateresponses to the needs of the

most disadvantaged rural areas;• A Rural Development Steering

Group should be established to co-ordinate the work of GovernmentDepartments and agencies wherethey affected disadvantaged ruralareas;

• A Rural Development Council,representative of a wide range ofrural interests, should beestablished to advise Governmenton rural development issues and towork with local groups toencourage ‘bottom up’ localdevelopment; and

• The Department of Agricultureshould set up a special fund tosupport rural developmentprojects.

2.35 The work of this Committee laid thefoundations upon which the first NI RuralDevelopment Programme was establishedin 1991. The (then) Department ofAgriculture for Northern Ireland (DANI) wasgiven responsibility for the Programme thefocus of which was fourfold:

• To create a balanced partnershipbetween central government, localauthorities, the voluntary,community and private sectors;

• To begin a programme of capacitybuilding within the localcommunities enabling them to helpthemselves develop programmestailored to meet the needs of theircommunities;

Table 2.1: Overview of RDPs in Northern Ireland 1991–2006

4 now re-named as Community Foundation NI

PDR39-1991 PDR99-4991 PDR60-0002

noisiVsiefilfoytilauqerehwtnemnorivnelaicosdnacimonoceesreviddnayhtlaehA'

'ytinutroppofoytilauqybdecnahne

miallarevO

ehtelkcatoT'dnalaicoscimonoce

ehtfosmelborpdevirpedtsomfosaeralarur

'dnalerInrehtroN

dnacimonoceetalumitsoT'ehtfonoitasilativerlaicoslarurdegatnavdasidtsom

dnalerInrehtroNfosaeraneewtebpihsrentraphguorhtyratnulovdnaetavirp,cilbup

'srotces

dnaevisneherpmocetomorpoT'ehtsdrawotnoitcadetargetni

elbatiuqednaelbaniatsusahtw,saeralarurfotnempoleved

nidna;egatnavdasidnosucofehtotetubirtnoc,osgniod

laicos,latnemnorivne,cimonoceehtfognieb-llewlarutlucdna

fotifenebehtrofytinummoclarurnrehtroNniytinummocelohweht

'dnalerI

seitiroirPdesab-ytinummoC

tnempolevedstcejorp

ytinummoClaruR•tnempoleveD

desab-ytinummoC•stcejorPnoitarenegeR

seigetartSdesab-aerA•

gnidliuByticapaC•dnastcejorPnoitarenegeRlacoL•

semmargorPdesab-aerAdnalarotceS•

dnastcejorPtnempoleveDsemmargorP

tnempoleveDssenisuBorciM•msiruoTlaruRecruoseRlarutaN•

sdnuF m5.6£ m55£ m08£

foecruoSsdnuf

suoiraV,IECAEP,)DRAPS(PSIN

GERRETNI,IIREDAEL,ACSEPIFI,II

,+REDAEL,IIECAEP,PSBIIIGERRETNI

16


• To provide appropriate financialsupport for the projects, whicharose from the process ofcommunity economicdevelopment; and

• To target the five mostdisadvantaged areas. In the firstinstance these were the Glens ofAntrim and Rathlin Island, theSperrins, West Fermanagh, theWestern shores of Lough Neaghand South Down and South Armagh– it was however recognised thatactivities could extend beyondthese areas in other ‘pockets’ ofdeprivation.

2.36 This first RDP potentiallyrepresented the real beginnings of ‘ruralpolicy’ implementation in Northern Irelandalthough the needs of rural NorthernIreland have always been an element ofprevious policy interventions, to a greateror lesser extent. Table 2.1 illustrates thevision, aims, priorities and funding of thethree main phases of the RDP to date (i.e.1991–1993, 1994–99, and 2000–06).

2.37 In the midst of the three RDPs, in1999, the DANI became the Departmentfor Agriculture and Rural Development(DARD). DARD has engaged both directlyand indirectly with rural communities inpursuit of moving towards the concept ofintegrated rural development. The indirectapproach has been largely through theRural Development Council (RDC) and theRural Community Network (RCN), both ofwhich currently receive core funding fromDARD:

• The RDC is a partnership-basedorganisation acting as one of thecore delivery agents of the RDPand delivers funding primarily tothe community and voluntarysector in Northern Ireland and alsoprovides evidence based policyanalysis and information. The RDCwas established in 1991 underDARD’s RDP. The evolution of theRDC can be categorised into threephases:

- Phase 1 1991–94 wascharacterised by a strong focus oncapacity building at communitylevel and delivering funds under theLeader 1 Programme;

- Phase 2 1994–99 wascharacterised by a shift towardsthe development and managementof a specialised project planningservice (PLANET) under the SPARDProgramme. In addition RDC was arural IFB (Intermediary FundingBody) under Peace 1 and an OCB(Other Collective Body) underLeader II funding private sectorinterventions; and

- Phase 3 2000–2006 has beenmarked by a more targetedapproach to project funding for thenot-for-profit sector together with asharper focus on developing thepolicy role of the RDC. The laterwas not an entirely newdevelopment of the RDC as it hadalready begun to provide a GISmapping service for clients andwas also involved in limitedresearch as well as developingpartnerships with other ruralorganisations. However what hasbeen new is the priority attached bythe RDC to developing a policy roleand in particular ‘rural baselining’.

• The RCN is a voluntaryorganisation established bycommunity groups in rural areas toarticulate the voice of ruralcommunities on issues of povertyand disadvantage. The RCN hasgrown from 60 memberorganisations in 1991 to over 500organisations by 2004. Thisrecognised the importance ofnetworking at sub-regional levelbased on the reality that groupsidentified more strongly with thelocal or sub-regional levels. TheRCN works in association with 12Rural Support Networks (e.g.Regeneration of South Armagh[ROSA] and East Down Network)

building the confidence and skillsof rural people for engagement inthe community regenerationprocess.

2.38 It is interesting to reflect briefly onthe progression of rural development asperceived from various perspectives. In areport prepared by the Centre on VoluntaryAction Studies at the University of Ulster,reference is made to the ‘wave ofheightening expectation’ created at thetime through the formation of newcommunity organisations.

2.39 Between 1995 and 1996 variousdevelopments unfolded:

1. An emphasis on project ‘pull-through’ from the overarching RuralDevelopment Programme of thethen Department of Agriculture andNorthern Ireland and specifically byits Rural Development Division(RDD);

2. Following a review of its activities,the publication of a new strategicplan by the RDC for the period1995–1999 declared an emphasison job creation;

3. The associated withdrawal of theRDC from community development;and

4. A commitment by the RCN toestablish a central support unit forcommunity development.

2.40 To some extent the abovedevelopments reflected a ‘deepeningrelationship of mutual dependence’ behindthe various interest groups in relation torural development policy. It also highlightedthe complexity around rural developmentand in particular the range of interests inrespect of rural areas in NI, for example,The Community Regeneration andImprovement Special Programme (CRISP)involving a partnership between the IFI, thethen Department of the Environment for NI(DOENI) and various local communities. Inaddition, the LEADER Community Initiativehas evolved over the last decade in terms

17


of implementation solely by the RDC underLEADER I to the use of various Local ActionGroups under LEADER II and LEADER+. Inaddition the LEADER programme hasevolved from a community based focus toa micro business focus under the currentprogramme.

2.41 The deepening relationship andmutual dependence within the ruralcommunity has been recognised withinDARD through the Rural Connect Branch.The Rural Connect is a sign-posting serviceto help farmers and farm families identifyfunding and support. It seeks to provide aguide to key services from DARD as wellas from the other GovernmentDepartments, Local Council and otherPublic Bodies that are relevant to farmersand farm families. There is recognition ofthe need to direct farmers and farmfamilies to the various rural developmentopportunities available through existingprogrammes. This is resourced through ateam of Rural Connect Advisers.

The role of the community andvoluntary sector in rural policyto date2.42 Building on the above it isimportant to acknowledge that a keyaspect of rural policy to date has beencentred on the community and voluntarysector. The involvement of the communityand voluntary sector through DARD’s RuralDevelopment Programme was alsocomplemented through DSD’s Voluntaryand Community Unit (which hasresponsibility for community developmentin Northern Ireland) and otherDepartments and Agencies for example,the Northern Ireland Housing Executive(NIHE) who interact with the communityand voluntary sector.

2.43 In particular the voluntary andcommunity sector have played a major rolein working with communities to achieverural development. It is recognised thatGovernment cannot achieve equitable andsustainable social change alone, forexample, in the UK Treasury Cross-CuttingReview (2002) which states:

‘the government needs a voluntary andcommunity sector that is strong,independent and has the capacity andskills…to be a partner in delivering worldclass public services….The sector brings adistinctive approach to service delivery,based on its specialist knowledge,experience and skills…this distinctiveapproach means that the sector has animportant role in the wider reform of publicservices.’

2.44 The value of the community andvoluntary sector in helping to achieve thisis well recognised in the Partners forChange Strategy for Support of theVoluntary and Community Sector 2001-2004 (commonly known as Partners forChange). Partners for Change wasdeveloped to ‘operationalise’ the generalprinciples (for example, participation andco-operation) and shared values (forexample, democracy and active citizenship)governing the relationship betweenGovernment and the sector articulated inthe Compact.

2.45 The role of the sector wasreinforced in the Programme forGovernment and Pathways for Change (theposition paper launched by the Taskforceon Resourcing the Community andVoluntary Sector). The sector is nowacknowledged as a key social partnerworking alongside Government and theprivate sector to build political stability,equality and economic and social well-being in NI as evidenced in the followingextract from the Programme forGovernment:

‘…we have the advantage of a vibrant andextensive voluntary and community sectorwhich makes a significant and crucialcontribution to many aspects of the social,economic environmental and cultural life ofNI. We are committed to sustaining thework of the sector, building strongerpartnerships with the sector and workingtogether as social partners to maximisebenefits to society.’

2.46 The economics and logistics ofdelivering several public services across

dispersed rural communities places aparticular emphasis on effectivecommunity infrastructure. A new way ofsecuring long term funding for the sectorusing a ‘social investment model’ hasbeen advocated in the Pathways forChange report to better formalise therelationship between the statutory andcommunity sectors in delivering publicservices and managing social well-being.This social investment model if fullyimplemented would lead to a new workingrelationship between Government andrecognition of the role of the sector as akey partner in tackling social need anddisadvantage, with a greater focus onquality of outputs and outcomes. This is ofparticular interest in light of the drive forsustainability in the sector and theanticipated reductions in EU funds post2006. Examples where the socialinvestment model could be applied includeRDC’s Vibrant Villages and BeaconCommunities pilot projects and theDHSSPS Sure Start project.

2.47 In Northern Ireland there is growingrecognition of the relationship betweencommunity development and communityrelations. From a social perspective whilerural communities in many cases haveenjoyed strong internal cohesion they canoften suffer from the same sectariandivisions. In particular, rural areas do nothave physical ‘peace-walls’ and thussectarian interfaces are often ‘signed’ byflags or hidden. Divisions are fuelled byvarious factors such as family andcommunity history, social and culturalissues, personal experience, landownership, shopping patterns andbusiness habits.

2.48 Recognition of the social andcultural attributes of rural communitiesand the need to address poverty,disadvantage and social inclusion allmanifest in a distinctive rural challenge.The peace-building challenges in ruralareas are of relevance to the recentconsultation exercise ‘A Shared Future’ ledby OFMDFM. The consultation recognisesthe role of the community and voluntarysector as both an essential partner and a

18


channel for the implementation of policyobjectives in the Shared Future review. TheShared Future consultation recognises thatthe sector plays a key role in developing ashared society whereby societal change isa pre-requisite to future Governmentsuccess at tackling community relationsand in particular it states ‘a new thrust tosignificantly improve relationships withinour society will require a long-termcommitment from Government…butGovernment cannot do what is necessaryon its own…communities must beempowered to address these challenges,guided by community leaders’.

2.49 Community infrastructure in ruralareas has led to the development ofempowerment, participation, social justice,self-help, collective working, and a senseof belonging. As Duncan Morrow (2004)5

stated ‘community has something to dowith identity and belonging…in communitywe both belong and have our own place’.

2.50 Community development in NI hasbeen both a reaction and an attempt toengage in a positive manner. Communitydevelopment is based on the principle ofinclusion and on the rights of all toparticipate and therefore endorsesdemocracy and equality of value. Itinvolves ‘equipping people with the tools toshape make their own mark and shapetheir own lives rather than simply acceptwhat was thrown at them’ (Morrow, 2004).Rural communities in Northern Irelandhave seen vast changes in the last decade(See Section IV: Baseline Position andNeeds of Rural Areas). For example,agriculture is going through a period ofgreat change and at the same time therural population is increasing. In somerural areas community development playsa large role in contributing to the quality oflife. To date rural policy has developedcommunity infrastructure as an asset toenable social inclusion, local citizenshipand positive lifestyle choices in widersociety – a concept which is key to future

directions as discussed in Section VIII:Way Forward and Future Directions.

2.51 One concept for measuring thecapacity of rural communities to sustain,adapt to change and contribute to thequality of life of the region is their level ofsocial capital. Social capital isrepresented in the linkages, relationships,familiarity and trust, upon which anycommunity is built. This is a relatively newapproach to addressing quality of life andsocial inclusion through recognising therole of community development. Theconcept of social capital has increasedsignificantly over the last number of yearsand is used to reflect the ‘glue’ that bindscommunities together. The ‘glue’ is madeup therefore of a complex array ofinterconnections brought about throughnumerous relationship ranging frominvolvement in bodies such as housingassociations, credit unions, crèches,church based groups and social/education organisations.

2.52 In 2002 the Voluntary andCommunity Unit (VCU) of DSDcommissioned CENI to produce the basisof a new measurement framework6 forassessing the outcomes of Governmentfunding and support to the sector. Therationale for the work was to establishenhanced levels of outcome measurementencompassing the social capitaldimension as well as the more traditionalevaluation indicators that have beenapplied to date. This is relevant toprevious observations that the sectoroffers distinctiveness in terms of addedvalue given that wherever the sectorprovides services, it does so in a way thatinvolves local people, builds localnetworks, increases community confidenceand stimulates the growth of social capital,both within and between communities. Todate these benefits of working with thesector have not been fully captured inevaluations (including evaluations of ruralpolicy and programmes) which have tended

to concentrate solely on economic outputsand the traditional evaluation concepts ofeconomy, efficiency and effectiveness.

Relevant cross-cuttingpolicy initiatives2.53 As well as other interventions inrural areas by the GovernmentDepartments in Northern Ireland (seeSection IV for details), a number of widercross-cutting government policies andinitiatives also have relevance to the ruralpolicy arena.

2.54 The Targeting Social Need (TSN)initiative, originally launched in 1991, is apolicy which seeks to tackle disadvantageby directing the efforts and resources ofGovernment policies and programmestowards individuals, groups and areasobjectively defined in greatest need. In1998 the Government published a WhitePaper entitled ‘Partnership for Equality’which considered the futureimplementation of TSN, in the light ofcriticisms made in the Standing AdvisoryCommission on Human Rights’ (SACHRs)1997 report on employment equality. TheGovernment’s response in the White Paperendorsed the rationale and generalobjectives of TSN, and concluded that theinitiative needed to be re-launched withgreater vigour and effectiveness. This ledto the New TSN initiative beingestablished. New TSN requiresDepartments and agencies to review all oftheir policies, programmes and fundingpriorities to identify any possibilities fortargeting social need and inequality. Manyof the rural development initiatives inNorthern Ireland have new TSN groups astheir priority. For example, the CommunitySupport Framework for NI for 2000-2006included New TSN as a Horizontal Principleto ensure that all its respectiveprogrammes (e.g. Peace II and LEADER)took New TSN into consideration in termsof fund allocation. In April 2004 aconsultation on a ‘New TSN – The WayForward Towards An Anti Poverty Strategy’was launched by OFMDFM. Theconsultation exercise ended in October2004.6 Report On Research into Evaluating Community-Based and

Voluntary Activity in Northern Ireland – Community EvaluationNorthern Ireland, December 2002

5 Morrow, D. (2004) ‘Community Development and PeaceBuilding’ Speech to RCN Summer School, the Rural College,Draperstown, 19th May 2004

19


2.55 The Programme for Government(launched in 2001 and now re-brandedBudgets and Priorities) introduced theconcept of ‘rural proofing’ in relation toensuring that due regard was given to theproposed changes in policies andprogrammes, and the potential impacts onthe rural economy. The Programme forGovernment provides a blue print for theGovernment’s priorities and strategicdirection over the medium term. There are5 priorities within the PfG includinginvesting in education and skills, growingas a community and securing acompetitive economy, all of which havespecific actions relating to the ruraleconomy. The DETI social economystrategy ‘Developing a Successful SocialEconomy’ promotes strengthening thesocial economy sector by collaborating withrural stakeholders in devising localstrategies for example, LEADER +, NetworkResource Rural Tourism and the RuralDevelopment Programme.

2.56 The Regional DevelopmentStrategy ‘Shaping our Future’ is anoverarching policy framework for thedevelopment of Northern Ireland up to2025. The promotion of sustainabledevelopment aligned to social andeconomic cohesion is an integral part ofthat perspective. The Strategy is animportant reference document forGovernment Departments in thedevelopment of policies and programmesand the setting of funding priorities. Theoverarching vision of the RegionalDevelopment Strategy (RDS) fits well withthat of the Rural Development Programme.

‘An outward looking, dynamic and liveableregion where people live and working in ahealthy environment which enhances thequality of their lives…’.

Regional Development Strategy 2025

‘A healthy and diverse economic and socialenvironment where the quality of life isenhanced by quality of opportunity’

Rural Development Programme 2000–2006

2.57 The Strategy dedicates an entirechapter (Chapter 8) to the strategic

Table 2.2: Population of rural NI according to RDS

AREA POPULATION NUMBERS

Main towns (excluding BMA and Londonderry) 322,000Small towns (under 10,000) and villages 312,800Open countryside 377,400Total rural population 1,012,200

Note: Figures are based on estimated population 1998Source: RDS

importance of the rural economy inNorthern Ireland which states that:

• Rural NI is a diverse area with adistinctive settlement pattern,formed from a rich mosaic of mainand small towns, villages, anddwellings in the open countrysidethat is unique within the UK;

• The rural community hasexperienced the fastest rate ofpopulation growth reversing a long-term trend of population declineand reflecting, in part, the successof rural regeneration activities;

• In the open countryside, thelargest growth of population overthe past 25 years has been in theBelfast ‘travel to work’ hinterlandreflecting the trend to use thecountryside as a residential areafor townspeople;

• A notable feature and asset for thefuture of rural society is the vibrantcommunity life in rural areasexpressed through the manycommunity organisations, churchesand community activities; and

• The RDS Landscape CharacterAssessment for all of NorthernIreland illustrates that in manyareas of NI the delicate and highquality rural landscape and thevisual amenity of the countrysideis compromised or threatened byinappropriate development. Thesegrowing pressures present a threatto the open countryside, which is avital resource for sustaining thegenuine rural community.

2.58 The Strategy recognises thatoutside of the largest cities in NorthernIreland (Belfast and Londonderry/Derry)around 1 million or 60% of NI’s populationlive in ‘rural NI’. The Strategy uses apredetermined definition of rural asanywhere outside of Belfast MetropolitanArea (BMA) and Londonderry/Derry as setout in Table 2.2. Detailed discussions onthe definitions of ‘rural’, including thatused in the RDS, are set out in Section IIIof this report.

2.59 The RDS will be subject to a‘focused assessment’ or updatingprocess, which is due to commenceshortly. The implications of this process forthe future directions of rural policy in NIare considered in Section VIII of thisreport.

20


3 Defining ‘rural’

Introduction3.1 Having examined the history andemerging importance of rural developmentin Northern Ireland, this section aims toprovide a basis for understanding ruralareas by first defining ‘what is rural’.

3.2 Defining ‘rural’ is a key issue forGovernment as a whole and specifically inNorthern Ireland as the term is used as abasis for analysis, targeting and policydelivery. For instance, different needs haveto be taken into account when consideringhousing, roads, health, water, educationand leisure provision in urban and ruralareas and the European Union alsoallocates funding for rural developmentwhich requires an appropriate policyresponse. Furthermore, as detailedpreviously, the Programme for Governmenthas placed a requirement on the Executiveto ‘rural proof’1 all government policieswhich to be effective requires anassessment of baseline statistics andneeds of rural areas.

3.3 However, despite the importanceattached to defining rural areas and theintensity of the debate and analysis thathas surrounded the issue, there is anabsence of a generally accepteddefinition of the term. Indeed, McDonaghcomments that for a term that ‘trips veryeasily off the tongue, the meaning of‘rural’ has proved elusive’2.

3.4 In acknowledging the complexity ofthis debate, this section aims to reviewthe different definitions of rural areas andexamine the advantages anddisadvantages of rural definitions thathave been applied. Following this, thesection concludes by providing options forDARD and proposing an approach to beapplied in considering future definitions.

Definition of rural areasacross EU and NI3.5 One means of understanding thedifferentiation between urban and ruralareas is to view the terms at oppositeends of a ‘continuum’. At one end urban isdefined as pertaining to, or constituting, acity or town and rural as pertaining to thecountry or country life. However, thisdistinction becomes blurred at the middleof this continuum and in recognition of thisthe term ‘rurban’ has been identified todefine the combined characteristics ofboth rural and urban life3.

Definitions of rural across NIDepartments3.6 As a result of the difficultiesexperienced in defining ‘rural’, differentdefinitions have been applied to policy andstrategy documents across GovernmentDepartments in Northern Ireland. Of theDepartments which have applieddefinitions of rural and urban areas thefollowing approaches were identified duringthe course of this review. Theseapproaches include the following:

• The Department of Agriculture andRural Development, and theDepartment of Culture, Arts andLeisure; rural areas are defined asall parts of Northern Irelandoutside the Belfast MetropolitanArea, City of Derry and other townswith populations greater than5,0004;

• Department of the Environment;rural areas are defined as the totalarea outside the developmentlimits of Belfast Urban Area, City ofDerry, Carrickfergus and Bangorand all settlements having apopulation of 3,000 or greater5;

• Department for RegionalDevelopment and the Departmentof Education; rural NorthernIreland includes all the towns,villages, small settlements andopen countryside outside the mainurban areas of Belfast and City ofDerry6; and

• Department of Health, SocialServices and Public Safety; for thepurposes of comparison on theequalities and inequalities in healthand social care between peopleliving in rural and non-rural areas,rural areas are defined as the 20%most rural wards using thepopulation density variable fromthe 2001 Census of Population. Allother wards have been classifiedas non-rural7.

3.7 It is commonly held, therefore, thatBelfast and City of Derry are urban areasalthough differences appear in theclassification of rural areas with definitionsranging from areas outside the two mainurban centres to the total area outsideDerry, Greater Belfast and populations of3,000 or greater. Moreover, there is noindication of the basis for identifying townsof either 3,000 or 5,000 populations.Clearly across Government there aresignificant discrepancies in the definitionsand ‘boundaries’ applied to the term rural.

Wider approaches todefining rural International/EU/UK/NI3.8 However, when reviewing otherapproaches across the EU and the UK, it isclear that different criteria and definitionshave been applied to identifying ruralareas. The simplest, most prevalentconceptions of rural are based onpopulation or population density criteria.

1 A Guide to Rural Proofing, considering the needs of rural areasand communities, DARD2 McDonagh, J. (2001) Renegotiating Rural Development inIreland. Ashgate Press

3 The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary4 Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (2001)Northern Ireland Rural Development Programme Strategy 2001-20065 Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (2004) FinalReport of the Inter-Departmental Urban–Rural Definition Group:Classification and Delineation of Settlements

6 Department for Regional Development (2001) Shaping ourFuture: Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland 20257 DHSSPS (2004) Equalities and inequalities in health and socialcare in Northern Ireland: A Statistical Overview

21


According to guidelines produced by theOrganisation for Economic Co-operationand Development (OECD), ‘a community(generally a municipality in the west anda township in the east) is defined as‘rural’ if its population density is lessthan 150 people per square kilometre’. Aregion, or census division, is defined as‘rural and remote’ if more than 50% of itspopulation lives in rural communities’(cited by the Canadian Rural InformationService8).

3.9 In England and Wales the Office ofthe Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) at firstidentified rurality as areas outside urbansettlements with a population of 10,000 ormore but this definition has now beenrecently refined by an interdepartmentalgroup9 to include population density.Working on the basis of typical householddensities and measuring the sparsity ofsettlements, rural areas have beencategorised in terms of ‘sparsity’ andclassified as towns and urban fringe,villages and dispersed10.

3.10 In Scotland in 2002, the ScottishHousehold Survey map provided astandard definition of rural areas. Thisclassification was outlined in the followingorder:

• Primary cities (with a population ofover 125,000);

• Urban settlements (with apopulation of over 10,000);

• Small accessible11 towns (with apopulation of over 3,000);

• Small remote towns with apopulation of over 3,000);

• Accessible12 rural; and• Remote rural.

3.11 In understanding the blurring of theboundaries between urban and rural areas,it is intended that these classifications areto be applied on a flexible basis and thatthese definitions are not used by theScottish Executive in every instance.Rather the classifications are to be‘adapted’ to different policy initiativeswhere appropriate. For some purposes, forexample strategic economic planning, ruralmight mean all of Scotland outside thefour big cities whereas, for the purpose ofdeveloping a general picture of ruralScotland, rural has been defined as thoselocal authority areas with a populationdensity of less than one person perhectare.

3.12 The Government, therefore, hasrecognised the limitations of broad-baseddefinitions of rural Scotland which fail tocapture the diversity of Scotland’s ruralcommunities and in acknowledging thesedefinitions need refining, havecommissioned the Scottish Office andScottish Homes to develop typologies ofrural areas. In anticipation of this work theNational Planning Policy Guidelinessuggest the following typology based ongroupings identified in the Scottish RuralLife Update analysis which face differentproblems and pressures13:

• Commuter: Residents are withineasy access (less than 1 hourtravel time) of a principal centre byeither road or rail and settlementscan vary in size from small villagesto small towns of around 10,000population. Areas arecharacterised, on the whole, bypopulation growth and increasedemployment levels over the last 10years. These areas often facepressures for land for new housing,business and industry andassociated infrastructure.

Accommodating new developmentwithout jeopardising the essentialrural identity of existingsettlements throughsuburbanisation can be a majorissue. Substantial newdevelopment will of course haveimplications for movement,particularly commuting by car.Thus, related policies on publictransport provision and trafficmanagement (e.g. park and ride)have to be considered in parallel;

• Intermediate: Residents willtypically be 1 to 2 hours travel froma principal centre. Areas aregenerally characterised by aresident ageing population, lowpopulation density and a highproportion of people living outwithsettlements. In the intermediateareas, important issues are how tomanage the diversification fromagriculture through small-scaleeconomic development andencourage the re-use of redundantagricultural buildings for housingand business uses whilst ensuringquality development; and

• Remote: Areas characterised bytheir remoteness e.g. residentscan be more than 2 hours travelfrom the nearest principal centreby car, rail or ferry thus isolationand peripherality are major issues.Areas are generally characterisedby a static or decreasingpopulation (due to ageing and netout-migration of young people), lowpopulation density, pooremployment opportunities and witha relatively high dependence on theprimary sector although there areexceptions where tourism has ledto growth. In remote areas, themain issues are how to relieve theisolation and distance fromservices of residents and how tostimulate the local economy e.g.through providing land foraffordable housing, opportunitiesfor local enterprise which harness

8 Canadian Rural Information Service (2000): The OECD definitionof ‘rural’ http:www.agr.ca/cris/fag/def-e.html9 Following a review of urban and rural areas definitions in use bygovernment, an interdepartmental group including the Departmentfor Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Office of the DeputyPrime Minister, Office for National Statistics, Welsh AssemblyGovernment and the Countryside Agency was established todevelop a new definition10 Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (2004)Rural Strategy 200411 Accessible is defined as within a 30 minute drivetime of atown with a population of 10,000 or more12 Ibid

13 Scottish Office (1998) Towards a Development Strategy forRural Scotland; Scottish Office (1999) National Planning PolicyGuideline NPPG15, Scottish Office, February 1999

22


information technology, alternativeincome generating opportunitiesfor farmers and crofters throughdiversification and by promotinggreen tourism initiatives.

3.13 By contrast, the Irish Governmenthas identified two more specific definitionsof rural areas for the purposes of thecensus and the White Paper on RuralDevelopment14. In the White Paper ruralareas are described as spatial unitsconsisting of small towns and villages withpopulations of less than 3,000 inhabitantsand their hinterlands, whereas the CentralStatistics Office, for the purposes of thecensus, classifies rural areas as spatialunits consisting of small villages (withpopulations of less than 1,500inhabitants) and the open countryside.

3.14 Moving away from the strictdefinition of rural areas as determined bypopulation, the Rural DevelopmentCouncil (RDC)15 highlights the importanceof ‘communities of choice’ representingcommunities formed by individuals withsimilar interests. On this basis, thecultural significance of rural is stressedwith the term reflecting a sense of placeand identity, the relationship of people toeach other across the differentcommunities and settlements within eachregion, and contributing to the health andwell being of people or higher ‘quality oflife’. Land use is also linked to theunderstanding of rural areas anddevelopment is considered rural wheneconomic or social activity draws uponnatural resources, and does so in way thatretains or enhances the ecological andenvironmental integrity of those resourcesin the local area. In this vein, ruralsettlements would be ones in whichnatural resources are a key ingredientunderpinning social or economicdevelopment, and rural areas are those inwhich more than one settlement can bedefined as rural.

3.15 On foot of this analysis, the RDCdeveloped a typology of rural areas with aview to understanding the differencesbetween rural areas. In an assessment ofagricultural employment and land use,namely patterns in full-time farmers,agricultural employment and the number offarms and farm households, a number ofspecific sub-regions in Northern Irelandare identified including:

• The rural south and west in whichagriculture remains relatively moreprominent than elsewhere as partof the social fabric of the area;

• The north where employmentpatterns also indicate animportance in agricultureassociated with a higher proportionof larger farms; and

• The east (including the BelfastMetropolitan Arena (BMA)) whichshows a larger farm size but lowerrelative employment.

3.16 In addition, focusing on socio-economic data, clusters of wards whichhave similar attributes were created basedon age, birth rates, car ownership,community and unemployment levels. Theclusters included:

• Marginal rural wards mostly in thewest and north. These wards havea higher than averageunemployment, lower than averagetravel to work, lower birth rate andlower than average car ownership.These areas are also outside ofthe Belfast ‘commuter zone’;

• The Belfast Metropolitan areawhich relates to the peri-urbanpopulation orientated to work inthe city. This area is associatedwith an older population and loweraverage birth rate and representinga mixture of retired personhouseholds and older (possiblymore middle class) commuterfamilies;

• Areas incorporating South Downand Armagh, Tyrone, South Derryand North Antrim. These parts ofNorthern Ireland show a mixed

pattern of medium travel to work,car ownership and unemployment,but a higher average birth rate andyoung population. These aretermed ‘lifestyle areas’ in whichthere are higher levels ofcommuting and employment aswell as higher levels of olderpeople all coming to live in thearea for lifestyle choices. Withthese areas demonstratingrelatively higher house prices toincome ratios this identifies a localeconomy of relatively low incomesbeing overlaid by mobile commuter-based population and retiredpeople helping to push prices up;

• Wards close to district townswhich have high unemployment,low travel outside the district andlow car ownership. These wardsalso show a polarised populationprofile featuring both a higher thanaverage proportion of older peopleyet consistently higher thanaverage birth rates; and

• Pockets of wards in the east ofNorthern Ireland which have highlevels of commuting but stilldemonstrating pockets of highunemployment.

3.17 Bringing the two types of analysistogether, the typology maps a complexpicture of economic and social dataacross Northern Ireland. While notproviding a definition of rural, the reportdoes identify a band of particularlymarginal rural wards in the west andnorth and concludes that these areasrequire local development solutions with amore sub-regional approach being moreappropriate in the east of Northern Ireland.

3.18 However, despite providing a betterunderstanding of rurality and socio-economic trends, the RDC report does notseek to present a clear definition of ruralareas which can be applied for statisticalanalysis, targeting and policy delivery.Indeed, the report recommends thatfurther work should be conducted in this

14 Department of Agriculture and Food (1999) Ensuring theFuture: A Strategy for Rural Development in Ireland - A White Paperon Rural Development15 Rural Development Council (2003) A Picture of Rural Change/Rural Development Council (2002) A Picture of Rural Change

23


area and that the ambiguity around thedefinition of ‘rural’ needs to be reduced.In addition, the key demographic indicators(e.g. age structures / de-population) usedin the typology are largely part of the effectof rural problems and not solely theirdefining characteristic.

Work of the Urban-RuralDefinition Group in NI3.19 In acknowledging the absence ofany generally accepted definition of ‘rural’and ‘urban’, an Inter-Departmental Urban-Rural Definition Group16 was establishedin Northern Ireland to identify anddelineate settlements. The report statesthat Belfast Metropolitan Area (roughly580,000 population) and the Derry UrbanArea (roughly 91,000 population) areplainly urban by criterion based onpopulation size, population density orservice provision. Further analysisclassified settlements into followingheadings17 as set out in Table 3.1.

3.20 From this classification and on thebasis of the location of post offices, a cutoff population of 2,250 was proposed fordistinguishing between larger and smallersettlements. However, in acknowledgingthat the boundary between urban and ruralis not clear cut, it was felt that a simplebinary distinction is not helpful inclassifying settlements for a number ofreasons:

3.21 First, there is a high degree ofinteraction between rural and urban areasin respect of accessing services whichblurs the distinction. By way of example,an urban regeneration project designed todevelop St George’s market in Belfast alsocontributes towards farming and the ruraleconomy in general. Secondly, serviceprovision and population size cannot be

regarded as an adequate proxy for thelevel of service provision by a settlement.For instance, on the basis of populationand settlement analysis, smallerpopulation settlements in the west ofNorthern Ireland can be considered moresignificant in terms of service provisionthan larger dormitory settlements in theeast. In addition, medium sized townswhich have smaller populations inproportion to services can be regarded asmore rural as they largely serve a widerrural hinterland18. Thirdly, services inNorthern Ireland have not been wellmeasured and for the definitions to beclearly identified there is a need to gain abetter understanding of the completepicture by mapping the level of public,private and community/ voluntary sectorservice provision and the level of accessto settlement services.

3.22 Given these difficulties the reportconcluded that the classification shouldbe used flexibly by Departments who canidentify a range of bands as being urban orrural as appropriate. However, althoughproviding a useful application forDepartments and making an importantcontribution to defining settlements, thereport classifies settlements in regard to

urban characteristics such as populationsize, density and service provision andthereby denotes rural areas as thosewhich are ‘non-urban’. While thecharacteristics of defining rural areas areacknowledged (dispersed population,agricultural or other extensive land use anddistance from major urban centres) theseare not explored in any detail and thereport suggests that more work needs tobe undertaken to reconcile the twodefinition approaches. In essence, nospecific single definition of rural areas orrurality in Northern Ireland is provided.This lack of a single specific definition canpose problems for groups as they canaccess funding from one GovernmentDepartment but not another leading toillogical and inconsistent practice.

Defining rural areas bypopulation density and landuse3.23 Taking the work of the Inter-Departmental Urban-Rural Definition Groupfurther, it is important that rural areas aredefined according to more ruralclassifications of population density andthe intensity of land use. In rural areasthe predominant land use is extensiverather than intensive. As land is aproductive resource (i.e. generating crops,livestock, trees, electricity or game) andthere is an incentive to use as much aspossible as the more land a producer has,the greater the output and the producer’s

16 The Urban-Rural Definition Group is composed ofrepresentatives from the Department of Social Development,Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, Department ofAgriculture and Rural Development, Department of Health, SocialServices and Public Safety, Department of Regional Development,Northern Ireland Office, Northern Ireland Statistics and ResearchAgency, Office of the First and Deputy First Minister and the RuralDevelopment Council17 Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (2004) FinalReport of the Inter-Departmental Urban–Rural Definition Group:Classification and Delineation of Settlements

Table 3.1: Definition of ‘rural’ as per the Inter-Departmental Urban-Rural Definition Group

Source: NISRA (2004)

18 This contrasts with medium sized towns which have a balancedproportion of services in relation to population which can beregarded as more ‘urban’ as the town is self-contained and largelydoes not exist to serve a wider rural hinterland

A AER P NOITALUPO

aerAnabrUyrreDdnaaerAnatiloporteMtsafleB A/N

nwotegraLdnaaerAnatiloporteMtsafleBton(eromro000,81

)aerAnabrUyrreD

nwotmuideM 000,81-000,9

nwotllamS 000,9-005,4

tnemelttesetaidemretnI 005,4-052,2

tnemelttesrellamS 052,2-000,1

evobaehtfoenoN 000,1nahtsseL

24


income. In urban areas, however, land islittle more than a platform for productiveactivities and an expense to be minimisedas far as possible. On this premise,workplace jobs per hectare can be usedas a proxy for the intensity of land use asmore urban areas will have a greaterconcentration of jobs in proportion toland. It is then possible to seek to maprural areas in Northern Ireland on a wardbasis in terms of population density and byworkplace jobs per hectare as illustrated inFigures 3.1 and 3.2.

3.24 From analysing and scoring bothsets of data on a ward basis thedifferentiation between urban and ruralareas can be charted in a continuum anddifferent degrees of rurality identified. Forinstance, if wards receive low scores inboth population density and job densitythey can be classified as ‘marginal rural’whereas wards which have high populationand job density they can be categorised asbeing ‘strongly urban’. In between thesetwo extremes different patterns in the dataappear. First, wards which have a high jobdensity but low population density can beclassified as either areas within the citycentre or factories and industrial estateslocated in rural areas. Secondly, wardswhich have a low job density but highpopulation density can be classified assmaller towns and villages and particularlythose within commuting distance of themain towns and urban centres asillustrated in Tables 3.2 to 3.5.

3.25 As shown in the tables above, it ispossible to classify certain characteristicsof urban and rural from analysing thepatterns and ward data on population andjob density. However, as with otherdefinitions, these classifications are moredefinitive at the extreme ends of the dataand it becomes more difficult to drawboundaries and cut-off points in wards thathave average scores. On this basis, furtheranalysis is needed to define anddistinguish between these less distinctivewards.

3.26 From reviewing the differentdefinitions of rural, which have been

Figure 3.1: Population density (per Ha) at ward level in Northern Ireland

Figure 3.2: Job density (per Ha) at ward level in Northern Ireland

Source: 2001 Census

Source: 2001 Census

25


identified in NI and elsewhere, Table 3.6summarises the advantages anddisadvantages of the different approaches.

Developing definitionoptions3.27 This section has reviewed thedifferent definitions of rural areas,examined their advantages anddisadvantages and provided a range ofdefinition options. It can be concluded thatit is only possible to define rural areas atthe more extreme end of the continuumwith the distinction between urban andrural becoming more blurred thereafter. Foran accurate definition the extreme ruralareas can be defined as settlements withpopulations of less than 2,250 inhabitantsand their hinterlands or wards which havea population and job density of under 0.5per hectare. This of course provides a verystrict definition of rural limiting the focus tomore marginal or peripheral areas whichdoes not encompass the full picture ofrurality.

3.28 However, notwithstanding theproblems of classifying rural areas, anumber of different definition options canbe applied to rural areas taking on boardthe work of the Inter-Departmental Urban-Rural Definition Group. These options areoutlined below:

(1) Rural areas include the towns, villages,small settlements and open countrysideoutside the Belfast Metropolitan Area Planand Derry Urban Area

3.29 Defining rurality as the areaoutside of the Belfast Metropolitan AreaPlan and Derry Urban Area acknowledgesthe high degree of interaction betweenurban and rural areas and that a simplebinary distinction between urban and ruralareas is unhelpful and impractical. In thisway towns which contain a significant levelof services in proportion to theirpopulations are not severed from theirrural hinterlands. In addition, this definitioncompares with the regional developmentapproach adopted by the Department forRegional Development in the RegionalDevelopment Strategy ‘Shaping OurFuture’.

(2) Rural areas include those areasoutside the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan,Derry Urban Area and Larger towns with apopulation of 18,000 or more

3.30 This definition recognises thatsignificant urban centres are locatedoutside of the Belfast Metropolitan AreaPlan and Derry Urban Area, but at thesame time understands the interactionsbetween urban and rural areas. As notedearlier, in defining rural and urban areas itis important not to sever/ distinguishtowns from their dependent ruralhinterlands. Therefore, although furtherresearch needs to be conducted onservice mapping in Northern Ireland, it

could be reasonably assumed that townswith a population of 18,000 or more areurban as they are more likely to be self-contained in terms of the requiredpopulation to maintain service provisionand do not exist to serve a wider ruralhinterland.

(3) Rural areas are defined as settlementswith populations of less than 4,500inhabitants and their hinterlands

3.31 Although a distinction can be drawnbetween intermediate and smallsettlements based on the existence of apost office, intermediate settlements canalso be defined as rural areas as they

Table 3.2: Low population density and low job density

Table 3.3: High population density and high job density

Table 3.4: Low population density but high job density

Table 3.5: High population density but low job density

D TCIRTSI W DRA P NOITALUPO J BO

enabartS egdirbmulP 11.0 10.0

enruoMdnayrweN aglepS 53.0 40.0

hgamO nitroG 42.0 70.0


novagiarC hcruhC 95.93 69.01

sugrefkcirraC torcylliK 55.42 51.22

tsafleB egdoLweN 59.27 62.74

yrreD dnartS 30.03 85.24

nrubsiL hganoT 13.05 85.92


tsafleB nriacnuD 33.4 14.22


nrubsiL evalarehgaM 98.02 10.1

tsafleB yhganiF 62.91 15.2

hgamrA lliHhciR 78.5 94.0

nwoDhtroN llennocamyllaB 1.31 45.0

26


Table 3.6: Critique of definitions of rural areas in Northern Ireland provide essential and important servicesto their immediate rural hinterlands.

(4) Rural areas are defined as settlementswith populations of less than 2,250inhabitants and their hinterlands

3.32 Based on an analysis of populationand service provision, rural areas can bedefined as settlements with populations ofless than 2,250 inhabitants and theirhinterlands. As settlements underpopulations of 2,250 do not contain a postoffice, this marks the distinction betweenintermediate and small settlements andconsequently the demarcation between themore significant ‘urban’ settlements andrural areas. This definition will thereforeprovide a greater focus on the moredispersed population areas and themarginal rural wards as identified by theRDC19.

Concluding Comments3.33 Given the complexity of rural areasand the degree of interaction betweenurban and rural, it is proposed that aflexible approach to defining rural areas beadopted using the options identifiedabove. In line with the typology provided bythe RDC, different definitions of ruralareas can be applied depending on thespatial focus of the issue to be addressedand the targeted nature of the policy orprogramme. To this end, local developmentapproaches and targeted rural initiativeswill adopt a narrower definition (i.e.settlements with populations of less than4,500 inhabitants) and policy orprogrammes focusing on wider sub-regional issues will apply broaderdefinitions (i.e. settlements withpopulations of over 18,000 or moreinhabitants). This definition is applied inthe new approach to rural policy set out inSection VIII.

D TPE O/ GR D NOITINIFE A EGATNAVD D EGATNAVDASI

,DRADLACD

dnalerInrehtroNfostrapllAtsafleBehtedistuo

foytiC,aerAnatiloporteMhtiwsnwotrehtodnayrreD

nahtretaergsnoitalupop000,5

lacol/desucofasedivorPgnidulcniylnoybhcaorppa

stnemelttesrellams

evresylegralyehthguohtlA,dnalretnihlarurrieht

ahtiwstnemelttes000,5revofonoitalupop.larurderedisnoctonerafonoitacidnionsierehT

gniyfitnedirofelanoitarehtnoitalupop000,5fosnwot

EoD ehtedistuoaeralatotehTtsafleBfostimiltnempoleved

,yrreD,aerAnabrUrognaBdnasugrefkcirraC

agnivahstnemeltteslladnaro000,3fonoitalupop

retaerg

eromasedivorPybhcaorppalacol/desucof

rellamsgnidulcniylnostnemelttes

evresylegralyehthguohtlA,dnalretnihlarurrieht

ahtiwstnemelttes000,3revofonoitalupop.larurderedisnoctonerafonoitacidnionsierehT

gniyfitnedirofelanoitarehtnoitalupop000,3fosnwot

DRD llams,segalliv,snwotehtllAnepodnastnemelttes

niamehtedistuoedisyrtnuocdnatsafleBfosaeranabru

yrreD

seitluciffidehtsegdelwonkcAyranibagnidivorpnidevlovni

nabruneewtebnoitcnitsidnodesablarurdna

ylraelcehtylnosA.noitalupoptonerasaeranabrudenifed

siht–larurderedisnocnoitcaretniehtsesingocer

stnemelttesregralneewtebsaeralarurdna

seodhcaorppalanoigerehTlarurenifedyllacificepston

raelcaedivorprosaeranoitnevretnirofsucoflarur

sisylanaro

SPSSHD sdrawlarurtsom%02ehTytisnednoitalupopehtgnisu

1002ehtmorfelbairavnoitalupoPfosusneC

hcaorppadesucofasedivorPrellamsehtgnidulcniylnoyb

noitinifedehT.stnemelttesytisnednoitalupopsyolpme,sisylanafodohtemehtsa

rofetairporppaeromsihcihwnahtsaeralarurgninifed

noitalupop

silarurfonoitinifedoNelanoitarehtdnadedivorp

ehtfo%02gniyfitnediroftonsisdrawlarurtsom

raelc

-apedretnIlatnemtr

-uR/nabrUlar

noitinifeDpuorG

stnemelttesfonoitacifissalC seitluciffidehtsegdelwonkcAyranibagnidivorpnidevlovni

nabruneewtebnoitcnitsidasedivorpdnalarurdna

gninifedothcaorppaelbixelfsadesuebotytilarur

etairporppa

nistnemelttesseifissalCnabrueromotdrager

foscitsiretcarahcytisned,ezisnoitalupop

dnanoisivorpecivresdnasaeralarursetonedybereht

-nonerahcihwesohtsa.nabru

saeralarurfonoitinifedoNnrehtroNniytilarurro

dedivorpsidnalerI

CDR desabsaeralarurfoygolopyTlarutlucirgadnaesudnalno

.tnemyolpmeforebmunafonoitacifissalC

dnalerInrehtroNnisretsulc-oicosfosisabehtno

atadcimonoce

ytixelpmocehtsdnatsrednUnrehtroNnisaeralarurfo

.dnalerIlarurfoygolopytasedivorP

larur'ehtnodesabsaeraesudnalfo'airetirc

fonoitinifedetulosbaoN.deifitnedisisaeralarur

srotacidnicihpargomedyeK,serutcurtsegage(

ehtnidesu)noitalupopedehtylegraleraygolopyt

dnasmelborplarurfotceffegninifedriehtton

citsiretcarahc

gninifeDlarur

ybsaera-oitalupop

ytisnedndnaldna

esu

nisaeralarurgnippaMdrawanodnalerInrehtroN

noitalupopfosmretnisisabecalpkrowybdnaytisned

.eratcehrepsbojmuunitnocafotnempoleveD

noitaitnereffidehtgnitrahclarurdnanabruneewteb

saera

gnidroccasaeralarursenifeDlarureromehtot

noitalupopfosnoitacifissalcfoytisnetniehtdnaytisned

esudnal

eromerasnoitacifissalCemertxeehttaevitinifed

sitI.atadehtfosdneseiradnuobwardottluciffid

sdrawnistniopffo-tucdna.serocsegarevaevahtaht

eromrofdeenasierehTdnaenifedotsisylana

esehtneewtebhsiugnitsidsdrawevitcnitsidssel 19 Rural Development Council (2003) A Picture of Rural Change/

Rural Development Council (2002) A Picture of Rural Change

27


3.34 Before proposing particulardefinition options however, the nextsection will analyse the economic, socialand environment conditions in NorthernIreland to determine the needs acrossrural areas and what issues require a localor wider sub-regional/ regional approach.

3.35 For the analysis of needs in thenext section, a definition of rural areasmust first be identified for the purposes ofstatistical analysis. Given the absence of agenerally accepted definition of the termand the need for DARD to discuss thedifferent options outlined in this sectionand the definition approach proposed inSection VIII, the remainder of this reporthas adopted the definition used by DARDin the development of the NI LEADER+Programme and the NI Rural DevelopmentRegulation Plan (Accompanying Measures).On the basis of the availability of up-to-date statistics, the Department appliestheir definition of rural areas (i.e. all partsof Northern Ireland outside the BelfastMetropolitan Area, City of Derry and othertowns with populations greater than5,000) on a District Council basis.Therefore, for the purposes of analysis inthe remainder of this report, rural areasare defined as the 17 most rural ofNorthern Ireland’s 26 District Councils. Inthe next section this definition is outlinedin more detail and used as a basis for theexamining the economic, social andenvironmental needs of rural areas inNorthern Ireland.

28


4 Baseline position and needs of rural areasin Northern Ireland

Introduction4.1 Following the end of the SecondWorld War and up until the 1980s, abroadly stable and coherent view of ruralpolicy and agriculture was maintained byboth Europe and the UK, centred on thepremise that a prosperous agriculturalsector was the key to food security, asound rural economy and rural amenity.

4.2 Since the 1980s this coherent viewof agriculture and rural policy has evolved.A range of issues at EU level are relevantand include the budgetary cost ofagriculture policy in the European Union;concerns over the environmental impactsof agriculture; disputes over internationaltrade made explicit through the GATT roundof trade negotiations; and counterurbanisation reducing agricultural land andthe character of the rural population1. As aresult of these factors and other dynamics,rural areas continue to be rapidly changingin ways that are reshaping communitiesand blurring previous urban and ruraldistinctions. In addition, alongside thesedevelopments, it is important forGovernment to be aware of changes inrural needs and society, if policy is toeffectively address rural issues.

4.3 In terms of change at the nationallevel, a review of the Rural White Papers inEngland and the Republic of Ireland2

shows that rural areas have experienced anumber of common trends and face similarchallenges. These include the following:

• Population growth: net migrationof people into wholly orpredominantly rural districts. Thisis the drift of people into thecountryside. However, outside ofthe areas close to the main urbancentres, some more remote ruralareas in Northern Ireland are

experiencing continued andpersistent population decline;

• An ageing population: anincreasing number of people aged65 and over. The loss of educated,dynamic and ambitious youngpeople in some rural areas hasdepleted the crucial entrepreneurialresource and impacted on themorale of the community as well asthe social and cultural quality oflife;

• Relative prosperity especially inmore accessible areas: higherincome per head than the nationalaverage in some rural areas andwith a disadvantaged minorityamidst prevailing affluence;

• Economic weakness, withassociated social deprivation, in aminority of ‘lagging’ rural areas:characteristically in areas adjustingto a decline in agriculture andfishing, and tending to be in moreperipheral areas;

• Convergence between the urbanand rural economies: althoughagriculture is still at the core of theeconomy and society, employmentin agriculture has decreased and isdecreasing further. For example,for every job lost in agriculture inIreland during the period 1991–1996, 4.5 jobs were created withinother sectors in rural areas;

• Increased mobility through accessto a car: bringing benefits for manybut reducing the customer base forpublic transport and thus creatingdifficulties for those withoutaccess to a car; and

• Pressures on the countryside:especially through the demand forhousing and transport and modernintensive farming methods.

4.4 Given these changes at theEuropean and national level, this Section

of the report aims to examine theeconomic, social and environmental needsof rural areas in Northern Ireland. First, theSection analyses Northern Ireland’s ruraleconomy by placing it in the context of theglobal, UK, and overall domestic economicenvironment in which it is performing.Following on from this, economic, socialand environmental conditions areassessed by examining Northern Irelandas a place to live, to work and dobusiness. Within these sub-headingsneeds in terms of economic, social andenvironmental issues are inter-linked.Appendix E outlines the statistical detailbehind the analysis presented in thissection. Under the heading a Place toGovern, the Section then provides areflection on the policy environment forrural areas by mapping rural activity acrossGovernment Departments (details of themapping exercise are included in AppendixF). This Section is structured as follows:

• Wider economic context: recentglobal and national economictrends and the implications ofthese trends on NI;

• A place to live: an analysis ofdemographic, education, housingstatistics, and consideration ofaccess to services;

• A place to work: an analysis of thesub-regional labour market and anexamination of the agriculture,manufacturing, tourism andenvironmental sectors;

• A place to do business: ananalysis of the businessenvironment and businessstructure in Northern Ireland,including an outlook for the futureof rural NI; and

• A place to govern: an analysis ofexplicit and implicit policy impacts.

4.5 Before examining the economic,social and working environmentalconditions in Northern Ireland, it isimportant to establish a definition of ‘rural’for the purposes of the analysis toestablish rural needs in this Section.However, as there is an absence of agenerally accepted definition (as discussedin Section III) and given the fact that up-to-

1 Hodge, I (1997) The Rural White Papers in Great Britain, Journalof Environment Planning and Management, 40 (3), 375-3762 Department of Agriculture and Food (1999) Ensuring the Future:A Strategy for Rural Development in Ireland - A White Paper onRural DevelopmentMinistry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (2000) OurCountryside: the future. A fair deal for rural EnglandDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2004) RuralStrategy

29


date statistics available below DistrictCouncil level are quite limited, thisanalysis has adopted the definition usedby DARD in the development of the NILEADER+ Programme and the NI RuralDevelopment Regulation Plan(Accompanying Measures). As a ‘workingassumption’ for the purposes of analysiswithin this Section, rural areas have beendefined as the 17 most rural of NorthernIreland’s 26 District Councils. For a moredetailed discussion see Appendix E.

The wider economic context

Key global economic trends andimplications for rural economies4.6 In assessing the recent trends ofthe rural economy in Northern Ireland, it isimportant to place its performance in thecontext of the wider economicenvironment. Key issues include:

• Changing global economic trends:the global economy is still slowlyrecovering and has still notreverted to ‘trend’ growth of 3.5%.In recent years the nature offoreign direct investment (FDI) hasbeen changing to favour low costcountries, and urban locations;

• Changes in technology and digitalcommunications: are forcingemployers not only to invest fasterthan ever before in their nextgeneration of products but also tokeep abreast of the latesttechniques and processes in orderto produce them competitively;

• Increase in importance ofenvironmental sustainability:particularly important to themanufacturing sector, firms aremore likely to have to comply withstricter environmental regulation inthe future, combined withincreasing demand for moreenvironmentally friendly materialand products from the markets;

• Increase in the incidence ofexternal shocks: the worldeconomy has been adversely

affected by exogenous events suchas terrorist activities and oil pricerises; and

• Changing nature of agriculturetrade: increased exports from lowcost developing nations, combinedwith the increasingly power of largeretail buyers have been puttingdown ward pressure on the pricesof food products from developednations. At these lower levels,producers in developed nationsfind that it is no longer economic toremain in the sector.

Recent issues for the NorthernIreland economy andimplications for rural economies4.7 Operating within the context of thewider economic environment, an analysisof the performance of the Northern Irelandhighlights a number of key issues andtrends that have implications for ruralareas:

• Consistent GDP growth: As awhole, it is estimated thatNorthern Ireland’s GDP growth willremain consistent until 2005,roughly matching the growth of theUK economy;

• Northern Ireland economicstrengths: Throughout early 2004,the Northern Ireland economyexperienced record high levels ofemployment and house prices,record low levels of unemployment,and strengthening businessconfidence;

• Underlying weaknesses: NorthernIreland’s economy is still heavilyreliant on the public sector and thewholesale and retail trade sectorfor employment. Combined with asmall private sector, manufacturingemployment continues to decline.Furthermore, its economic activityrate is the lowest of any UK region,and the number of business start-ups in Northern Ireland remainbehind the UK average;

• Dependence on the agriculturesector: Over a third of NorthernIreland’s VAT registeredbusinesses are found in theagricultural sector compared to theUK average of 8.8%. The sectoralmix of both Northern Ireland’sbusinesses and employment hashistorically made the rural economya vital component of overallperformance; and

• Falling levels of investment: thetotal value of investment byexternally owned companies in theregion has been in relative declinesince 1997/98. In addition, themajority of recent investment hasbeen concentrated in the servicesector which prefers City centrelocations as opposed to out oftown, green field sites.

A place to live4.8 There are a number of aspects tothis sub-section, population growth,educational achievement, housing andaccess to services in general in ruralareas. These are summarised as follows:

• Faster growing rural population:48.5% of the population can bedefined as rural in 2002,compared to the remaining 51.5%which were urban. Rural NorthernIreland has higher live birth ratesper 1,000 of the population thanUrban Northern Ireland; and haslower death rates per 1,000 of thepopulation relative to urban. It istherefore estimated that over theperiod 2002 to 2017 thepopulation of rural Northern Irelandwill grow by 9.8% compared to1.3% for urban Northern Ireland(see Figure 4.1). Therefore therural areas of Northern Ireland willhave access to a faster growingworking age population than theurban areas. Consequently, theurban areas of Northern Ireland willeventually experience a relativedecline in their working agepopulation before the rural areas;

30


• Relatively poorer educationalattainment in rural areas: areaswhere at least half of thepopulation have no qualificationsare located in the Western ruralregions and Belfast. In addition,those areas with over 19% of theirpopulation qualified to a degreelevel or above are concentrated inthe BMA and Coleraine;

• The housing market strongest inurban Northern Ireland: thehousing market in Northern Irelandhas continued to strengthen, withthe average house price doublingover the period Q4 1995 to Q12004. However, the average houseprice in rural Northern Ireland wasonly £94,318 in 2003 Q4compared to £129,275 for urbanareas;

•• An increasing demand for ruralhousing: the demand for housing inrural areas has increasedsignificantly with the greatestconcentration of planningapplications being located in thedistrict council areas surroundingGreater Belfast (i.e. the BelfastTravel to Work Area). However, inrecent years the highest number ofsingle dwellings approved in the

countryside has been inFermanagh, Newry and Mourneand Armagh and this is likely toincrease in future years;

• Rural housing demands haveplaced pressures on thecountryside environment andraised conflicts of interest: singledwellings in the countryside canlead to the deterioration of thewater supply from increased septictank use, deterioration of rurallandscape character, loss ofhabitat, fragmentation ofagricultural land and increasedtraffic levels and associatedpollution. On the other hand, ruralhousing also providesopportunities for the localcommunity to utilise their landassets, exercise their right to livein the open countryside andincrease demand for increasedrural private sector provision;

• Influx of urban dwellers ischallenging the sense ofcommunity in rural areas: thequality of rural life is furtherimpinged by the arrival of peoplefrom urban areas who may be‘jumping the green belt’ in searchof space and quality of life. Such

commuters not only represent asignificant energy and congestioncost on society, or an underminingof local services and of economiesthrough a rural to urban ‘braindrain’, but also ‘steals time’ whichcould be invested in the socialcapital of rural communities. Assuch, some areas of thecountryside are becoming ‘lifestyleareas’ and challenging the senseof community and place in ruralareas. This new influx of urbandwellers can both reduce theopportunities to invest in the socialcapital but also stimulate newcommunity activities;

• A healthy communityinfrastructure and store of socialcapital: given the number ofcommunity groups that exist inrural areas for a wide range ofactivities, a healthy communityinfrastructure has beenestablished;

• Implicit but strong communitydivisions: although there is a richresource of social capital andcommunity infrastructure in ruralareas and ‘peacelines’ may only bea feature of urban areas,community divisions in rural areasstill remain strong andcommunities have tended to placereliance on established family orpersonal connections. This isevidenced by ongoing researchconducted by RCN within theirnetworks, which points to thechallenges at grassroots level inbridging community divisions. Inparticular, the research suggeststhat often in rural areas theimpression is that communitydivisions are less intense, however‘when you scratch below thesurface, the old sectarian elementis very strong’;

• Linked to the community relationsissue above is the much broaderissue of encouraging diversity and

Figure 4.1: Population projections, 2002 to 2017

Source: NISRA

800

820

840

860

880

900

920

Urban

Rural

20172015201320112009200720052003

Popu

latio

n 000s

31


equality of opportunity in ruralareas. There are issues andchallenges evident within ruralcommunities in terms of variouscategories of the Section 75legislation in NI, again drawing onresearch undertaken by the RCN.For instance, with respect togender a host of issues arerelevant (e.g. the tradition ofhanding down the farm to theeldest son meaning that womencan lose out; social isolation ofsingle rural men; whereopportunities for social or workbased integration can be limited;and, the extent to which womenare recognised as the ‘backbone’of rural development). In terms ofage the isolation and related riskof the incidence of poverty for olderpeople in rural areas is a key issuehighlighted in the recent RCNreport (Ageing and Rural Policy). Interms of race/ ethnicity there areissues in terms of inclusion oftravellers and migrant workers,evidenced by recent spates ofracially motivated incidents (e.g.examples cited included attacks onPortuguese individuals working inCo Tyrone, who represent agrowing community in this locality).In the context of sexual orientation,the research also suggests thatsupport organisations for gaypeople in rural areas do not existto the same degree and thatsexual preference is difficult toquantify because it is not as openlydiscussed. Finally, in respect ofdisability the research indicatesthat there can be a lack of privacyin rural communities, which areoften small and tightly knit. Thusstigmas about disability can seemmore apparent to the individualsbecause they have a feeling that‘everyone knows about them andtheir condition’. Overall thesefindings point to a real challenge inbuilding a pluralist society in ruralcommunities, which embracesdiversity and extends equality (with

respect to the 9 categories of theSection 75 Act);

• Quality of health and social care;research suggests3 that there arehealth and social care inequalitiesbetween rural and urban wards inNorthern Ireland. In particular theresearch shows that:

- Positive findings for ruralareas include:• Mortality rates for people agedunder 75 living in rural areas isless than the Northern Irelandaverage and conversely, is greaterfor those people living in non-ruralareas;• Life expectancy for people livingin rural areas is slightly higher thanboth the Northern Ireland averageand that for people living in non-rural areas;• Cancer incidence rates arelower in rural wards than in therest of Northern Ireland;• Uptake rates in rural wards arebetter for all immunisations(e.g.Wooping Cough, Polio) incomparison to non-rural wards andthe Northern Ireland average; and• The teenage birth rate in themost rural areas is half that inother areas in Northern Ireland.

- Negative findings for ruralareas include:• The average response time toincidents in rural wards is sevenminutes greater than to those innon-rural wards;• The average travel time fromrural areas to an A&E Departmentis over 21 minutes, which is almosttwice as long as from non-ruralareas;• The travel time to a hospitalwith learning disability outpatientservices is 15 minutes on averagefrom rural areas, which is 7

minutes longer than from non-ruralareas;• Infant mortality rates in ruralareas are greater than theNorthern Ireland average; and• Standardised admission ratesfor people living in rural wards arelower than in non-rural wards andNorthern Ireland as a whole,particularly for emergencyadmissions.

- Neutral findings for rural areasinclude:• There are no real differences indental registration rates betweenrural wards, non-rural wards andthe Northern Ireland average; and• There is virtually no differencein the proportion of persons ofexcessive waiting lists (e.g. 18months or more) between ruralwards, non-rural wards and theNorthern Ireland average.

• Access to services: in terms ofsocial needs in rural areas, accessto services is one factor thatimpinges on the attractiveness ofrural areas as a ‘place to live’. Ashighlighted in RDC’s 2003 BaselineStudy4 ‘rural society is anincreasingly complex mix ofdifferent people living in thecountryside, some working in it,some commuting to the city forwork’. There is a need to ensureadequate access to key publicservices (for example, health,education) and community levelservices, which assist themaintenance and enhancement ofsocial capital. Research showsthat:- There is a shortfall within theNoble Deprivation Index in takinginto account the degree ofaccessibility to key services in ruralareas. The top most deprivedwards based on ‘access to

3 DHSSPS (2004) Equalities and inequalities in health and socialcare in NI: a statistical overview (See Appendix II - Comparison ofrural and non-rural areas for morbidity and utilisation indicators).

4 RDC (2003) A Picture of Rural Change 2003, A Report by theRural Development Council

32


services’ domain are all rural, yetonly 4 of these wards appear in thetop 20 most deprived wards basedon the ‘multiple deprivation index’.The underlying issue is thatweighting attributed to the ‘accessto services’ domain within multipledeprivation measure is low whichpotentially results in a degree ofrural insensitivity in capturinghighlighting poverty. This is a keyissue given that those in ruralpoverty are often furtherdisadvantaged in a rural settingbecause of limited access toservices and related problems ofmobility and isolation. Theseissues have been highlighted byboth RCN5 and RDC and point to aneed for the particularcircumstances around rural povertyto be more fully embraced in futureplans to take the deprivationindices forward.- In addition the RDC reportsome of the issues facing ruralNorthern Ireland in relation toaccess to services:• 19 Post Offices closedbetween 2001 and 2003. Just overone third were in rural areas; and• Provision for young people is acontinuous concern for many ruralcommunities. The provision ofyouth clubs is consistently betterin district towns than in ruralhinterlands, which means thatyoung people must find a means oftransport to attend a youth club.- In addition the DHSSPSresearch6 shows that in relation topharmacies; dentists; opticians;GP practices, children’s homes;day centres; nursing homes; acutehospital inpatient services andoutput services; maternityservices; and accident and

emergency services – that thoseliving in rural areas have to travelfurther to access such servicesand the number of such services inproportion to the population ofrural areas is low in comparisonwith urban provision. For example,in terms of dentists, fifteen percentof the NI population live in themost rural wards and 3% (or 25) ofdental surgeries are located inthese areas. The average traveltime to a dental practitioner in ruralareas is more than double (9minutes) that in non-rural areas (4minutes) regardless of weightingfor need.

- The issues discussed above withrespect to access to services inrural areas, highlight theimportance of facilities such ascommunity halls in rural areas.These have become a centralresource in some rural areas tofacilitate aspects of statutorysector provision (e.g. health, socialand community services). Throughaccessing further funds thecommunity groups managing thesehalls have been able to improvethe accessibility and health andsafety of their halls to allowcommunity development work totake place. The RCN hasestablished a Community HallAdvisory Group to provide training,support, advice and guidance forcommunity groups seeking to oralready managing community halls.

A place to work4.9 This sub-section begins with adiscussion on the labour market,presenting the picture of economic activitybefore concentrating on economicinactivity. This discussion then coversaverage earnings before examining thecurrent structure of employment and futureprospects in the agricultural,manufacturing, tourism and environmentalsectors. The analysis draws on variouslabour market statistics:

• Fast employment growth in ruralNorthern Ireland: Analysis shows

that employment growth on thewhole, was marginally faster in therural economy than that of theurban economy. However, furtheranalysis of employment growth byLGD shows that the economies,which experienced growth belowthat of the Northern Irelandaverage were predominantly madeup of the rural areas. Those areaswith the highest growth over theperiod, tended to be locatedaround the BMA and the southernborder with the Republic of Ireland.This apparent contradiction can beexplained by the fact that the likesof Dungannon, Cookstown, andNewry and Mourne experiencedgrowth of over 25% from 1993 to2001, which effectively pulled upthe average rural growth rate;

• Rural areas have less favourablelabour markets: lower economicactivity rates and high levels ofunemployment and long-termunemployment, combined with thelow levels of job density suggestthat the rural areas of NorthernIreland have ‘less favourablelabour markets’. However, theevidence also suggests that theremay be relatively prosperous ruralareas located in and around theBMA and the areas surroundingLough Neagh, and relatively poorerareas around the periphery.However economic activity rates forboth males and females in ruralareas have fallen over the periodsuggesting that their labourmarkets have still perhaps sparecapacity;

• Convergence in unemploymentrates: it is worth noting thatregardless of rural areas’ relativelabour market disadvantagescompared to urban areas, thelabour markets in these rural areashave improved considerably overthe last decade. For example, asrecently as February 2002, Moylewas reported to have an

5 NI Review of Deprivation (the Noble Index – Response from RCN)6 DHSSPS (2004) Equalities and Inequalities in Health and SocialCare in NI: A Statistical Overview (See Appendix V - Comparison ofrural areas and the NI average for accessibility indicators).

33


unemployment rate in the doublefigures (10.4%) compared to the3.2% shown in Map 5. Overall,recent improvements have resultedin a convergence of unemploymentrates across the region and whencompared to the UK average;

• Low economic activity rate:Northern Ireland’s economicactivity rate was some 7percentage points below the UKaverage in 2003. However, thereare further diversities withinNorthern Ireland. In general, thefurther away from the BMA, thelower the economic activity ratebecomes. Intuitively rural areashave higher proportions of theirpopulation economically inactive(see Figure 4.2), with generallymore categorised as permanentlysick/ disabled;

• Rural economies are unfavourablystructured: Rural economies havean above average dependence onthe relatively low-value addedsectors of agriculture andmanufacturing. Analysis suggeststhat the most productive regions inthe UK have moved away frommanufacturing sectors and intoservices sectors. Therefore, thestructure of the rural economy maynot be conducive to future high andsustained economic growth;

• Mixed fortunes for agriculture: thenumbers employed in agriculturehave been declining steadily since1990. Over 100 of NorthernIreland’s 582 wards rely on thissector for over 8% of employment,96 of which are defined as ‘rural’.However farm incomes also gainedfrom trends in currency, lowinterest rates and EU reforms;

• Fresh challenges for agriculture:the sector faces a number ofchallenges including, new supportarrangements, EU enlargement,broadening the market base/

increasing value added activity,animal health and bio-security. Theindustry will need to overcome thechallenges above and evolve into amore competitive and successfulsector. The sector domesticallymay have to restructure, leading toa further reduction in the numberof full-time farm. In addition, therewill pressure to find off-farmsources of income, especially giventhat the textiles sector (often asource of a second income tofarming households) is in declineacross Northern Ireland;

• A decline in manufacturingemployment: manufacturingemployment in Northern Irelandhas been contracting for 13consecutive quarters (see Figure4.3). In employment terms only 4of the 13 sub-sectors have lostjobs in the last decade, withtextiles dominating the job losstotal. Indeed without the job lossesin textiles, manufacturing wouldhave expanded by 8,500 jobs overthe last decade. Givenmanufacturing seems to be moreconcentrated in Northern Ireland’srural economy, any future job

Figure 4.2: Economic inactivity by Local Government District, May 2003

Source: NISRA

Figure 4.3: Manufacturing employment, UK and NI: 1971-2013

Note: Employment includes employees in employment and self employed

Source: Regional Forecasts

20

40

60

80

100

United Kingdom

N. Ireland

201420112008200520021999199619931990198719841981197819751972

1971 =

100

34


losses could affect the rural areasmore than the urban areas;

• Further decline in manufacturingforecasted: forecasts show acontinued decline in employmentlevels, in manufacturing inNorthern Ireland (see Figure 4.3).Based on the manufacturingprojections, 8 of the 17 LGDsclassified as rural are forecast toshed more manufacturing jobs as apercent of the working agepopulation than the NorthernIreland average;

• Limited private sectoropportunities: given the fact thatthese sectors are so

underrepresented in NorthernIreland’s rural economy, anyopportunity for rapid, sustained,high value added growth is at bestlimited;

• Limited opportunity in privateservices and FDI: Regardless ofthe fact that employment in privateservices is forecast to growsteadily (see Figure 4.4), the futuretrends in private service FDI arelikely to favour city centre locationsand areas where a trained qualifiedworkforce is readably available;

• Tourism concentrated in urbanareas: Over the period 1995 to2001 employment in tourism in

Northern Ireland grew by 41.2%.Comparing growth in the ruraleconomy (20.6%) with that of theurban economy (68.6%) highlightsthe uneven distribution of therecent improvement in tourism. Inrelation to tourism spend in 2002,again the urban economyoutperformed the rural economy,with £213.1m and £181.8mrespectively;

• Tourism employment is forecast togrow at a fairly stable rate overthe forecast period: the challengefor the rural economy is to build ontheir existing facilities andattractions and to develop newareas of growth (see Figure 4.5);

• Future of public sector uncertain7:it is estimated that an additional20,000 jobs could be created,mainly in health and education.This may be enhanced bydecentralisation, however, theGershon Review and Review ofPublic Administration (RPA) point tooverall reductions in employment(see Figure 4.6);

• Northern Ireland possesses a richvariety of scenic countryside thatis an integral part of the region’sphysical and cultural heritage:with 130 distinctive areas recordedin the Northern Ireland LandscapeCharacter Assessment, nineexisting Areas of OutstandingNatural Beauty (AONBs), around191 Areas of Special ScientificInterest (ASSIs) and one WorldHeritage Site8. In Northern Ireland,Improved and Neutral Grasslandsmake up two thirds of the landcover and a substantial proportionof the UK stock of NeutralGrassland is located in the region.

Figure 4.4: Private sector services employment in Northern Ireland, 1991 to 2030


Figure 4.5: Tourism employment in Northern Ireland, 1991 to 2030


0

50

100

150

200

250Alternate scenario

Base scenario

20302027202420212018201520122009200620032000199719941991

20

40

60

80

100

Alternate scenario

Base Scenario

20302027202420212018201520122009200620032000199719941991

7 Drafted before publication of “Fit for Purpose” (Reform Agendain the NICS) and the revised Priorities and Budget 2005–08.8 Department for Regional Development (2001) Shaping ourFuture: Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland 2025

35


Neutral Grassland is lessintensively managed than manyother agricultural grassland typesand includes hay meadows of highconservation value. Fen, Marshand Swamp, and Bog are alsoimportant landscape elements inNorthern Ireland9;

• The natural environment providesa valuable contribution to thelocal economy: based on anassessment of employment, it isestimated that over 64,000 jobsare directly supported by theenvironment in Northern Ireland inthe public, private, voluntary/community and agriculture sectors;

• Increasing importance ofenvironmental agri-managementschemes: although progress todate has been limited, the numberof environmentally managed farmsis increasing and environmentalmanagement schemes arebecoming more prominent withinthe agricultural sector;

• The quality of the naturalenvironment is being increasinglyrecognised as an important factorfor companies choosing to investin Northern Ireland: although notquantifiable in monetary terms thenatural environment is animportant factor in businesslocation and the quality of life witha rich variety of scenery andcultural heritage is considered oneof the top ten reasons why foreigninvestors choose Northern Ireland.This view has also been supportedin recent research which noted thatthe attractiveness of the ruralenvironment, and the associatedperception of a higher quality oflife, was considered a key businessadvantage which rural businessenjoyed over their urbancounterparts;

• The natural environment is a keytourist attraction in NorthernIreland: The majority of the twentymost popular visitor attractions arenatural environments or builtheritage visitor centres and forthose who visit Northern Ireland fora holiday or leisure activity, one ofthe main reasons for doing so is toparticipate in activities that rely onthe environment. However, in

utilising the environment as atourist attraction, this raisesdivisive issues concerning accessto the countryside;

• Conflicting interests over accessto the countryside: Utilising theenvironment as a tourist attractionraises divisive issues concerningaccess to the countryside.Although a range of environmentaloutdoor pursuits require openaccess to any uncultivated uplandfarmland, farmers in NorthernIreland can be reluctant to grantaccess due to public liability andother issues;

• The rural environment is underpressure most notably in theareas of biodiversity, water quality,rural landscapes and the builtheritage. Tensions and conflicts ofinterest rest within the ruralenvironment as the environment isregarded both as a resource fordevelopment and conservation.While the environment can makean important contribution to thelocal economy, changes inagriculture and wider land usemanagement have also placedincreasing pressures on the ruralenvironment most notably inrelation to biodiversity, naturallandscapes and the built heritage;

• Land use in Northern Ireland haschanged rapidly impacting on thestatus of broad and primaryhabitats. This has largely been dueto the changes in agriculturethrough continued agriculturalintensification, specialisation andencroachment. Between 1992 and1998 the areas of perennialryegrass, cereals, species-rich wetgrassland and wet bog havedeclined by 23%, 30%, 37% and21% respectively. As a result,farmland bird populations andagricultural habitats haveundergone considerable decline. Inaddition, there is a danger that CAP

Figure 4.6: Public sector employment in Northern Ireland, 1991 to 2030


9 Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions(2000) Accounting for Nature – Assessing habitats in the UKCountryside, Countryside Survey 2000

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

Alternate scenario

Base scenario

20302027202420212018201520122009200620032000199719941991

36


reforms, in particular the processof decoupling, left unmanaged willresult in the further deterioration ofthe rural environment;

• However, compared to the restof the UK, Northern Ireland hasthe greatest density of hedgerowswith an average of 17 kilometres ofhedge per square kilometre.Hedgerows are acknowledged asan important habitat for vascularplans, birds and invertebrates.Priority bird species such asyellowhammer rely on good qualityhedgerows for nesting sites and itis held that 170 species of birds,shrubs and wildflowers exist inNorthern Ireland’s hedgerows;

• Northern Ireland, on the otherhand, has the lowest level of treecover in Europe (about 6%) andmost of the tree cover (80%)consists of coniferous plantation.Some land, however, has beenafforested and 74,000 hectares iscurrently under trees but until1993, most planting consisted ofexotic conifers in the uplands oftenon sensitive sites. A change ofpolicy has now resulted in lessstate forest and more woodlandswith broadland trees being plantedin smaller private plots allowinggreater scope for new woodlandsfor amenity and biodiversitypurposes;

• Diffuse pollution has created anumber of problems in relation towater quality. There are currentlybetween 400–500 substantialpollution incidents every year inNorthern Ireland resulting fromagricultural activities. NorthernIreland’s lakes, rivers and streamsare highly eutrophic with anestimated 60% of the nutrientscoming from agriculture whilst over50% of soils have a highphosphorus status. Diffusepollution with phosphates in LoughNeagh in particular, is of key

concern with agriculturalcontributing 58% of thephosphorous in the catchment; and

• Impacts on the character andvisual quality of the natural andbuilt landscape. Such changesrelate to the disappearance of drystonewalls and hedgerows andolder agricultural buildings whichhave been perceived as inefficientor unnecessary have also beenrendered redundant andabandoned or demolished.

A place to do business4.10 This sub-section analyses thebusiness environment and businessstructure in Northern Ireland, including anoutlook for the future of rural NI.

• Business starts and bankruptciesconcentrated in urban areas:evidence suggests a sectoral shifttowards urban located privateservice businesses and away fromrural agriculture businesses isunderway, and this, in general,reflects a more urbanised businessenvironment. Bankruptcies havebeen widely distributed acrossNorthern Ireland in recent years,however the concentration of

bankruptcies is in the mainpopulation centres of Belfast andits surrounding areas, as well asDerry, and Newry;

• Falling FDI: the total value ofinvestment by externally ownedcompanies in the region has beenin relative decline since the peak of1997/98 (see Figure 4.7).However, Northern Ireland hasbroadly retained the same marketshare of UK FDI. In addition, thebulk of FDI is located in the urbaneconomy;

• The successful firm: will move fromlow-tech production to innovationbased activity, where R&D will be akey element. In addition, it will bewell connected and IT enabled. Itwill move from the local market tohigh value added activities in nichemarkets. Furthermore, itsworkforce will well educated andhighly skilled. The challenge torural policy in the future will be toattract these ‘successful firms’;and

• Competitiveness: A commonissues affecting all businesses in

Figure 4.7: Foreign Direct Investment in Northern Ireland (1990/01 = 100)

Source: Invest Northern Ireland

0

100

200

300

400

500

NI

UK

02/0301/02

00/0199/00

98/9997/98

96/9795/96

94/9593/94

92/9391/92

90/91

37


rural areas whether in theagricultural, manufacturing orservices sector is the need to becompetitive in a globalenvironment.

A place to govern

Mapping rural activity acrossGovernment4.11 Given the breadth of the economic,social and environmental needs in ruralareas there are a range of governmentpolicies that are related to the rural sector.In the similar vein to social exclusion, thedevelopment of rural areas is a cross-cutting issue or ‘theme’ which spans theresponsibilities of a range of Departments.

4.12 In mapping the activities ofDepartments, however, a clear distinctionneeds to be drawn between those policiesthat are specifically targeted at rural areasand those that are developed on regionalbasis but will ultimately impact on ruralareas. To this end, the mapping exercisedifferentiates between explicit and implicitpolicy impacts. This means that only wherepolicy documents specifically state that theinitiative is directed or targeted towardsrural areas and specific rural issues thatthe policy can be classified as explicit.Implicit then refers to those policies which,although not specifically targeting ruralareas, will impact on rural areas indirectly.Following a review of policy documents andMinisterial statements across GovernmentDepartments and Agencies, the followinginitiatives have been mapped (AppendixF).

4.13 Notwithstanding the role of theDepartment of Agriculture and RuralDevelopment, from the mapping exercise itis possible to identify a core range ofactivities that aim to have an explicitimpact in rural areas. The activitiesimplemented by the Departments andAgencies are as follows:

• Office of the First and Deputy FirstMinister (OFMDFM): through theProgramme for Government(Budgets and Priorities) there is aclear commitment to sustain rural

life and the countryside for thefuture, to enhance localcommunities, particularly in themost disadvantaged urban andrural areas, and address theparticular impact that thedifficulties facing agriculture arehaving on rural communities;

• Department for Employment andLearning (DEL): The Department iscurrently piloting the concept ofTargeted Initiatives in four areaswhich suffer multiple deprivation,one of which is located in a ruralarea;

• Department of Enterprise, Tradeand Investment: (DETI) TheDepartment is co-ordinating R&Dwith DARD and facilitatingknowledge and technology transferto the agri-food industry. Ruraldevelopment is considered as anarea for cross departmental actionto ensure DETI works effectivelywith other departments. In additionthe DETI ‘Developing a SuccessfulSocial Economy’ states theimportance of involving ruralstakeholders in developing thesocial economy;

• Invest NI: The agency aims tohighlight the skills andopportunities available in localrural areas within Northern Irelandto potential investors with a view toattracting investment. Invest NI iscurrently reviewing its propertypolicies which currently results inhaving available industrial land inall 26 local authority areas. Inaddition, the agency aims topromote business start ups in ruralareas;

• Northern Ireland Tourist Board(NITB): The Tourist Board isseeking to promote the variety anddistinctiveness of NorthernIreland’s natural resources – ruralareas and lakelands – which offeropportunities for tourism growth.

Linked to this is the concept ofactivity tourism which bringssignificant benefits with regard toregionality and seasonality. TheTourist Board also part funds theNatural Resource Rural TourismInitiative under PEACE II that istargeted at developing tourism indisadvantaged rural areas;

• Department of Culture, Arts andLeisure (DCAL): Having animportant role in inland waterways,the Department aims to developfish production, angling and otherwater-based recreation projectsthat will result in a tangible benefitto local rural economies andincrease tourism potential;

• Department of Education (DE): Inrecognising that small schoolsmake an important contribution totheir local communities, theDepartment aims to ensure thatrural communities have access toa network of strong rural schools.The Department lists a number offactors including projectedenrolments, proximity andaccessibility of neighbouringschools, social, demographic,economic and community aspectsof the proposed change and thebest educational interests of thechildren in making decisionsregarding amalgamations orclosures. The Department alsofunds the Cross-Border RuralChildcare Project that aims toidentify and address childcareneeds in rural communities on bothsides of the border;

• Department of the Environment(DoE): Within the Department, theEnvironmental Policy Group‘sobjective is to developenvironmental policy and legislationwhich protects, conserves andenhances the natural environmentand built heritage. Sustainabledevelopment is also a key themeand the department is working on

38


the development andimplementation of a NorthernIreland Sustainable DevelopmentStrategy;

• Environment and Heritage Service(EHS): The EHS aims to protectelements in the rural landscape,contributing to a sense of identityand place that can stimulateeconomic regeneration and are animportant focus for educationaland tourist visitors. In addition theEHS part funds the NRRT initiative.Finally, the Department has theprimary responsibility forimplementing EU environmentallegislation, including the NitratesDirective and the Water FrameworkDirective which both have directrelevance to rural NI;

• Department for RegionalDevelopment (DRD): Rural areasare placed central to the RegionalDevelopment Strategy 2025 andthe strategy aims to develop anattractive and prosperous ruralarea, based on a balanced andintegrated approach to thedevelopment of town, village andcountryside. In PPS 14 theDepartment also sets out keyissues for SustainableDevelopment in the Countryside forconsultation. In addition, theDepartment is currently supportingand developing rural transportservices through the RuralTransport Fund;

• Roads Service: Roads Service iscommitted to repair or make safeserious road surface defects onboth heavily and light traffickedrural roads;

• Department for SocialDevelopment (DSD): TheDepartment is committed towardsfunding a range of projects andprogrammes at the local level inrural areas including communitydevelopment regeneration projects,

environmental improvementschemes, neighbourhood renewalprojects and town centreregeneration projects;

• Northern Ireland HousingExecutive (NIHE): Through thepublication of a report entitledDelivering Rural Commitments theHousing Executive has outlined arange of commitments for ruralhousing including assessinghousing need, linking rural housingand health, improving housingconditions and quality. The HousingExecutive has also extended its‘Group Repair’ Grant to rural areas,helping improve the externalappearance of local housing;

• Department of Health, SocialServices and Public Safety(DHSSPS); the Department alongwith DARD part fund the RuralStress Helpline. The Departmenthas also published a reportexamining the inequalities in healthand social care in Northern Irelandthat are relevant to the NewTargeting Social Need (New TSN)policy, including the base report ofthe ‘Inequalities MonitoringSystem’. The overview alsodocuments comparisons betweenpeople living in rural and non-ruralareas focusing on a range ofissues such as mortality rates, lifeexpectancy, cancer incident rates,lung cancer and access times to alltypes of facilities includingopticians, dentists, A&Edepartments, and disabilityoutpatient services10; and

• Department of Finance andPersonnel (DFP); Not being aspending department, the mainaim of DFP is to ensure theappropriate and effective use ofresources and services and thatthe Government’s priorities and

budget is taken forward. TheDepartment, therefore, has a‘regional’ focus.

Concluding comments4.14 This section has set out in detailthe economic conditions prevailing atglobal and Northern Ireland levels, andthereafter aimed to summarise the ruralperspective of Northern Ireland as a placeto live, work, do business and to govern.The main messages for rural areas are:

• Unfavourable labour marketconditions: regardless of theimprovements in the labour forcerelative to the urban economy, therural economy faces the challengesof improving economic activity andeducational attainment. Howeverthis may depend on itsperformance with regardsemployment creation;

• Convergence in unemploymentrates: it is worth noting that thelabour markets in rural areas haveimproved considerably over the lastdecade. Overall, recentimprovements have resulted in aconvergence of unemploymentrates across the region and whencompared to the UK average;

• A need to adapt to a changingeconomic environment: ruralNorthern Ireland must meet thefresh challenges facing theagricultural sector while maximisingthe potential of tourism and privateservices in the face ofmanufacturing decline;

• Increase competition in attractingnew investment: new FDI is likelyis to favour the services sector andwith it, city centre locations. As aresult the rural economy facesincreased competition forinvestment;

• A focus on innovationcompetitiveness and high valueadded: the future successful firm islikely to be innovative and based10 DHSSPS (2004) Equalities and inequalities in health and social

care in Northern Ireland: A Statistical Overview

39


on R&D practices. Combined withchanging agricultural trends, thereis a need for the sector to findniche markets;

• Favourable demographic trends:the rural economy will experienceless of a slow down in populationgrowth and hence, more favourablesupplies of potential labour;

• An increasing demand for ruralhousing: in recent years thehighest number of single dwellingsapproved in the countryside hasbeen in Fermanagh, Newry andMourne and Armagh and this islikely to increase in future years;

• Access to services: in terms ofsocial needs in rural areas, accessto services is one factor whichimpinges on the attractiveness ofrural areas as a ‘place to live’.There is a need to ensureadequate access to key publicservices (for example, health,education) and community levelservices which assist themaintenance and enhancement ofsocial capital. In regard toaccessing the countryside, thereare competing interests betweenthose seeking to utilise theenvironment as a tourist attractionand farmers who are oftenreluctant to grant access due topublic liability issues;

• Influx of urban dwellers ischallenging the sense ofcommunity in rural areas: someareas of the countryside arebecoming ‘lifestyle areas’,challenging the sense ofcommunity and place in rural areasand reducing the opportunities toinvest in the social capital;

• Northern Ireland possesses a richvariety of scenic countryside thatis an integral part of the region’sphysical and cultural heritage:with 130 distinctive areas recorded

in the Northern Ireland LandscapeCharacter Assessment, nineexisting Areas of OutstandingNatural Beauty (AONBs), around191 Areas of Special ScientificInterest (ASSIs) and one WorldHeritage Site;

• The natural environment providesa valuable contribution to thelocal economy and is a key touristattraction in Northern Ireland:based on an assessment ofemployment, it is estimated thataround 64,000 jobs are directlysupported by the environment.Survey evidence also shows thatone of the main reasons for visitingNorthern Ireland is to participate inactivities that rely on theenvironment;

• The importance of promotingsustainable development. Tensionsand conflicts of interest rest withinthe rural environment as theenvironment is regarded both as aresource for development andconservation. While theenvironment can make animportant contribution to the localeconomy, changes in agricultureand wider land use managementhave also placed increasingpressures on the rural environmentmost notably in relation tobiodiversity, natural landscapesand the built heritage. Therefore,while rural areas contain valuableresources, the unhinderedutilisation of those resources canactually exhaust the basis fordevelopment;

• The rural environment is underpressure most notably in theareas of biodiversity, naturalresource protection, landscapesand the built heritage. Farmlandbird populations and agriculturalhabitats have undergoneconsiderable decline over the last50 years, soil erosion is becomingan increasing problem, diffuse

pollution is causing a widespreadthreat to good water quality, andthe distinctive landscape characteris under pressure due todevelopment, land managementpractices or simply neglect; and

• A range of GovernmentDepartments are intervening inrural areas: Given the breath of theeconomic, social andenvironmental needs in rural areasthere are a range of governmentpolicies that are related to the ruralsector. The development of ruralareas is a cross-cutting issue or‘theme’ which spans theresponsibilities of a range ofDepartments. In examining theactivities of Departments, however,a clear distinction needs to bedrawn between those policies thatare specifically targeted at ruralareas and those that aredeveloped on regional basis butwill ultimately impact on ruralareas.

40


5 The rationale for rural policy intervention

Introduction5.1 This section explores issuesaround the justification or rationale for theintervention of rural policy. Firstly, thesection reviews the main justifications forinterventions in rural areas advanced invarious strategy documents in NorthernIreland. Following that, the sectionpresents a framework for the assessmentof the rationale for governmentintervention in the economy generally.Then, drawing on the assessment of theeconomic, social and environment trendsand needs in the preceding section, therationale for intervention is examinedagainst the framework.

5.2 It is important to note that therationale for intervention is not necessarilyunique or specific to rural areas alone. Therationale can extend to variousgeographies, groups and sectors within theNorthern Ireland context.

Justification for intervention5.3 From reviewing relevant strategydocuments, it is possible to detect anumber of broad sets of arguments thathave been advanced in the support ofGovernment involvement in ruraldevelopment. These can be summarisedas follows:

• Firstly, the need for theGovernment to intervene insupport of rural development isjustified frequently onredistribution or social inclusiongrounds. The RegionalDevelopment Strategy, Shaping OurFuture, and the Rural DevelopmentProgramme Document 2001–2006,for example, refer to the high levelof deprivation in some rural areasand the need to promote socialinclusion and target interventionsat economic ‘blackspots’. Inaddition, reflecting on theeconomic disparities of rural areas,the Regional Development Strategypoints to the importance ofencouraging a more equitabledistribution of public and privateinvestment in order to achieve‘balanced regional development’.

To this end, it is held that theeconomic and social benefits of amore stable and prosperousNorthern Ireland need to betranslated into balanced andsustained development rightacross the region;

• A second related justificationcentres on economic or labourmarket grounds. As rural areashave a major dependence uponagriculture, an industry facingconsiderable long term structuralchange, it is asserted that theeconomy needs to be managed inorder to address the change,examine new opportunities andprovide skills and training toencourage economic developmentand improve the quality andmobility of the labour supply. In thislight, the Regional DevelopmentStrategy states the need to‘increase the diversification of therural economy to meet employmentneeds and keep wealth circulatingwithin the local economy.’ Giventhe high proportion of SMEs inrural areas, another element of thejustification for intervention iscentred on offering support tosmall businesses on the basis oftheir vital role in stimulatinginnovation and competitivenessand their relative difficulties incompeting effectively in markets(transaction costs, imperfectinformation, poor access to trainingand skills, etc.). In economicterms, SMEs and micro-businessesare often the key to new areas ofgrowth in an economy but theyfrequently face ‘marketimperfections’ or various kindswhich justify state intervention toassist them;

• Thirdly, intervention in rural areasis justified on the basis ofenvironmental and economicconsiderations. In the absence ofintervention, it is argued that urbandispersal pressures and the

restructuring of agriculture willthreaten important environmentalassets. It is also held thatmanagement is essential in orderto conserve the importantenvironmental assets andeffectively utilise and sustain therich landscape that provides a vitalresource for rural communities;and

• Fourthly, a more recent argumentfor intervention is justified on thebasis of social and communitygrounds. As well as containing anenvironmental resource, it ismaintained that in localcommunities and extended familynetworks rural areas contain animportant social and communityasset that needs to be built uponas a basis for social inclusion,local citizenship and positivelifestyle choices in a widersociety. For example, the RuralDevelopment Council argues that inthe absence of state intervention,suburban development, in-migration and commuting areundermining the inclusivity ofcommunity developmentapproaches, inhibiting localcitizenship, and atrophies keysocial qualities of neighbourliness,collective care and a shared senseof place. In addition, although therea rich resource of social capitaland community infrastructure inrural areas, intervention is requiredto address the more implicitcommunity divisions andpolarisations that exist in ruralareas.

Assessment framework5.4 The assessment frameworkcentres on the issue of whether a marketfailure or distortion exists that wouldprovide a rationale for intervention in theform of a programme. It is a necessary butnot sufficient condition that some form ofmarket failure exists if governmentintervention is to improve economicefficiency. The other condition is that the

41


social benefits of any intervention toaddress market failure exceed the costs.Public finance theory points to two maininstances of market failure, as follows:

• Firstly, where there are publicgoods. In strict economic terms, apublic good is one whichpossesses the two characteristicsof jointness and non-excludability.That is, it can be ‘consumed’ byone person without compromisingthe ability of other people toconsume it (jointness), and it is notpossible or convenient to excludeor charge people for use of thegood in question (non-excludability). Examples of publicgoods include infrastructure suchas roads, and many environmentalgoods and services (e.g. clean air,pleasant landscapes, biodiversity).Public goods’ characteristics meanthat they will generally be under-provided in free markets relative tothe optimum level of provision forsociety as a whole, so there is aclear case for governmentintervention to ensure theiradequate provision andmaintenance; and

• Secondly, market failures can arisein the presence of externalities orspillover effects. Again ineconomic terms, an externality is abenefit or cost generated by a firstparty in supplying a good orservice to a second party, whichaffects a third party who is notdirectly involved in the transaction.Externalities can be positive ornegative. Pollution can be anexample of a negative externality,in that it generally arises as a by-product of a normal productionprocess and imposes costs onwider society that are not reflectedin the market-derived costs of thatproduction process. Examples ofpositive externalities include thetime and accident preventionsavings resulting from an upgradedtransport infrastructure (fromwhich all benefit, but not all pay for

it), or the ability to enjoy a well-managed rural landscape which isa by-product of centuries of farmingactivity but where farmers have notbeen paid directly for managing thelandscape. Positive externalitiesimply that the social returns (tosociety as a whole) exceed purelyprivate returns (to the individual).Where positive or negativeexternalities arise, market valuesignore these wider costs andbenefits so there is a case forpublic intervention to attempt to‘internalise the externality’ byimposing costs on, or providingsupport to, producers,representing the wider public costsor benefits of the productionprocess concerned.

5.5 In addition to public good andexternality market failures, ‘state’intervention can be also justified on equityor redistribution grounds. This may be ininstances when the quantity of a good (orservice) supplied, the speed at which themarket responds to the demand and thedistribution of provision (both in terms oflocation and between different groups insociety) may not be considered desirableor equitable. In these circumstancesGovernments frequently intervene inmarkets to attempt to redistribute orcontrol the allocation of resources orincome between different groups toprovide a ‘fairer’ result than would beanticipated if markets were left to operatealone. Such intervention may be in theform of redistributive instruments (e.g.taxes and benefits to move money fromricher to poorer citizens) or via regulation(to control market behaviour and prevent‘unfair’ practices, for example, as with thework of the competition authorities).

Assessment of rationale forrural intervention5.6 In applying the framework to ruraldevelopment it is possible to ask whetherthe intervention can be justified byreference to clear market failures orredistribution grounds, or indeed on bothgrounds.

5.7 As noted above, the mainjustifications for a programme can becategorised under the headings of (i)redistribution/ social inclusion, (ii)economic/ labour market, (iii)environmental/ economic and (iv) social/community. In assessing thesejustifications, the redistribution/ socialinclusion and economic/ labour marketarguments are first examined together asthe economic benefits are broadly inter-dependent and following that, theenvironmental and social arguments areconsidered.

5.8 From analysing the economic andsocial conditions in Northern Ireland it isevident that economic activity,qualifications, service sector employmentand foreign direct investment,demonstrated a concentrated focus onurban areas as opposed to rural. Forexample, only 3 of the 17 rural localgovernment districts have an aboveaverage concentration of employees inprivate services, 67.8% of employment inforeign owned business are located in theurban economy and the further away fromthe Greater Belfast area the lower theeconomic activity rate becomes. Althoughmost deprived wards are located in certaininner city areas of Belfast and Derry, ruralareas, compared to urban, tend to havehigher levels of unemployment and inparticular, higher long-term unemploymentas a percentage of total unemployment.This analysis suggests that market forces,on average, largely tend to favour urbanlocalities at the expense of rurallocalities, and that intervention isjustified on the basis of re-distribution.

5.9 In this assessment, however, it isimportant to recognise that ruraleconomies are more complex and thatcertain rural locations are relativelyprosperous. For instance, the analysis ofaverage earnings in the previous sectionpointed to more prosperous rural areassituated around the BMA and the southernand north eastern shores of Lough Neagh.On this basis, the diversity of rural areasneeds to be highlighted and a distinctiondrawn between rural locations around the

42


BMA and the southern and north easternshores of Lough Neagh and the more‘peripheral’ areas to the west. In relationto unemployment, the evidence suggeststhat in general the ‘peripheral’ areas,which have the lowest economic activityrates and slowest employment growth,also have associated high levels ofunemployment. Moreover, the incidence ofdeprivation in Northern Ireland (based onthe Robson and Noble indicators)demonstrates acute levels of deprivationin rural wards. Rural poverty, therefore,has proved to be a significant andpersistent problem and this is exacerbatedthrough limited access to transport andkey services in these areas.

5.10 In addition, rural areas have over-dependence on the agriculture andmanufacturing sectors. The analysis in theprevious section notes that all 17 rurallocal government districts have a higherconcentration of employees in agricultureand 11 of the 17 rural districts have ahigher concentration of employees inmanufacturing than the Northern Irelandaverage. In fact with regard to agriculture,96 rural wards in Northern Ireland rely onagriculture for over 8% of employment.Both agriculture and manufacturinghowever are two sectors experiencingchange and in some respects, a period ofdecline over the last 10 years and are setto face increasing challenges andcompetitive pressures.

5.11 Furthermore, given the relativelyhigh proportion of SMEs and micro-businesses in rural areas of NorthernIreland, economic activity strongly dependsupon the performance and fortunes ofsmall enterprises. While a study ofbusiness success concluded that ruralfirms did not perform differently fromsimilar urban firms in terms of change ofemployment, it was held that rural firmsare constrained by a lack of suitabilityskilled and professionally trained staff,and face higher costs of transportationand communication. The report alsosuggests that rural firms tend to follow amore production orientated non-localmarket strategy making them more likely

to be in direct competition withinternational manufacturers operating inlow wage economies1.

5.12 In considering the problems of highlevels of deprivation and unemployment,over-dependence on agriculture andmanufacturing and the problems facingsmall businesses, there is clear evidenceof relatively low economic activity ratesindicative of labour market rigiditiesproviding one rationale for intervention.Given the diversity of rural areas, thejustification does not rest on one ofwholesale redistribution but rather tofacilitate and promote the restructuringof the rural economy and address theproblems of poverty and social exclusionin specific marginal or peripheral ruralareas.

5.13 With regard to the environmentalconsiderations, the analysis in theprevious section has demonstrated thatthere are a number of clear economicbenefits that can be derived from therural landscape as a public good, fromwhich private business activities can bedeveloped. First, the rural environment hasdemonstrated a capacity to attract visitorsand tourists whose expenditure can createand also retain jobs and provide multipliereffects working through the local economy.The NITB Framework strategyacknowledges the importance of the ruralenvironment for tourism as noted in theprevious section, and tourismcommentators have predicted that ruraltourism seems set to grow significantly as‘short breaks’ become more popular and atype of tourism that values ‘doing’ and‘experiencing’ more than passive relaxinggrows in popularity2.

5.14 Secondly, there are jobs andknock-on economic activity can becreated or sustained in ‘the environmentsector’ itself; that is in the production,conservation and marketing ofenvironmental goods and services. Forexample, these include jobs (in the public,private and voluntary/ community sector)and turnover generated in themanagement and restoration of thelandscape and built environment, craftbusinesses based on local raw materials,interpretation centres of the local area forvisitors, the operation of gift shops,restaurants/ cafes, and education/ activityor information centres at sites that aremanaged and promoted for environmentalpurposes.

5.15 Given the public good nature of thebasic quality of the rural environment,state intervention can be justified in orderto protect and encourage sustainablemanagement of this resource. In effect theenvironment is an ‘asset’ that needs to becarefully managed. This presents apositive approach to a rationale forintervention, much of which to date hasbeen argued on the basis of disadvantage(perceived or real) – an approach, which isviewed by some as a ‘liability’ modelrather than an asset based approachdetailed above.

5.16 Evidence for the rationale forintervention in rural areas can also bebased on associated positive and negativeexternalities. From an environmentalperspective intensive farming, an increasein industry, population and the associatedinfrastructural development, have togetherled to an increase in pollution andenvironmental degradation in rural NI. Atthe same time, habitats and features inrural areas have suffered from a decline insensitive land management. In particular,the quality of the wildlife and waterbodieshas declined. Forecasts in the UK suggestthat at present rural areas will continue toexperience a decline in the quality of theenvironment3. On this basis, there is a1 Anderson, D. Tyler, P, McCalion, T. Ayre, T and Matthews, D.

(2004) Business Success in Rural Northern Ireland. RuralInnovation and Research Partnership, Queen’s University Belfast2 See the growing ‘rural futures’ literature e.g. M Moynagh and RWorsley (2003) ‘The State of the Countryside 2020’ – a report tothe Countryside Agency; and an as yet unpublished work for Defraby the ‘Rural Futures’ project team ( The Futures Foundation andUniversity of Newcastle upon Tyne)

3 Performance and Innovation Unit (1999) Rural Economies,London, Stationery Office, December 1999.

43


need for intervention to effectivelymanage the development of rural areasand ensure that vital rural environmentalresources are sustained.

5.17 In addition, the development ofrural society can yield benefits or positiveexternalities that would not be reflected inmarket prices. Specifically, it can avoid theadditional costs of congestion in urbanareas that would be experienced if thedecline of, and consequent out-migrationfrom, the rural economy was permitted tooccur unrestricted. The increased costs ofservice provision in urban areas if therewas in-migration to urban areas may alsonot be offset by commensurate reductionsin rural areas (because of the need tomaintain a certain minimum threshold).

5.18 The final argument for intervention,which needs to be considered is thatcentred on social or community grounds.This is based on the premise that rurallocal communities contain a high level ofsocial capital, centred on a sense of placeand pride and extended family networksthat can have beneficial effects upon theattitudes of the local population andthereby on economic development. In thislight rural social networks are regardedas a public good as it provides a valuableresource. For example, with scarcefinancial resources making it difficult forGovernment to ensure the cost effectivesupply of good quality services in areas oflow population density, it is maintainedthat social capital becomes crucial as itwill determine the community’scontribution of:

• Planning and priority setting – aswith community groups and localcouncils researching local needsand expressing these, andpreferred ways of meeting them, inwell crafted ‘local plans’;

• Management – as with schoolgovernors deploying the buildingsin their care to best meet localneed;

• Labour – as with school helpers ofdifferent kinds and the volunteerswho run community shops andsocial car schemes;

• Finance – as with fundraising forschool facilities or for village hallrefurbishment improvements – andwell researched applications forfunding from third parties such asthe Lottery and the charitabletrusts; and

• Legitimacy – as with surveys, localcouncil pronouncements andpolitical lobbying that express localpriorities.

5.19 Despite these strong argumentssome issues remain. First, while the manyreports and documents that have beenexamined as part of this review, point tothe importance of social capital,measuring social capital is a very difficulttask particularly if evidence is sought ofthe picture across a rural region. Socialcapital is a concept, which requiresextensive qualitative and quantitativeanalysis to fully identify the depth of thesocial cohesion or ‘glue’ that holdsindividuals and communities together.While much research has been undertakento develop methods for analysis4, there isno common accepted way of measurementthat could be applied to rural areas inNorthern Ireland. For instance, with a viewto charting the level of social capital, theCountryside Agency in England hasexperimented with measuring two kinds ofsurvey-based indicators of ‘communitystrength’ but concluded that both of thesetools are too time-consuming and datahungry to permit their use in more than afew selected localities5. In NI the main tooldeveloped to date has been the CENIindictors through the Department forSocial Development, although recentresearch6 suggests that there is more todo in terms of raising awareness of theseand ensuring a practical framework forimplementation. Therefore, although the

concept of social capital has beenestablished, the difficulties involved inmeasurement makes its presence orabsence fairly difficult to identify, utiliseand evaluate.

5.20 Secondly, against the indicators,which are commonly presented to capturethe incidence of social capital7, theevidence suggests that rural areas are nota special or unique asset and that socialcapital is also prominent in urban areas.For example, in relation to the ratio ofpersons to NICVA Groups8 in NorthernIreland, some of the highest proportionsare located in the BMA. Indeed, whenexamining the grant leverage rate of NICVAGroups9 (which could be used as a proxyfor assessing their level of organisation)those located in the urban areas ofNorthern Ireland received one of thehighest levels of funding. This position isalso supported by work conducted byCairns et al who concluded that while thereare statistically significant differences insocial capital between rural and urbandwellers (rural dwellers core higher), inabsolute terms the differences were small.In addition, the study found no differencesbetween collectivism and individualism inurban and rural areas10.

5.21 This suggests therefore that ruralcommunities are special but not unique asurban and suburban communities alsoreflect many of the qualities ofneighbourliness, local citizenship and ashared sense of place.

5.22 That said, government programmeshave invested heavily in rural communitiesand a relatively healthy communityinfrastructure has gradually emerged from

4 Putnam, R. (2003) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions inModern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princetown University Press5 State of the Countryside 2002 reportFine, B (1999) The development state is dead – long live socialcapital? Development and Change 30(1):1-19Hawe, P. and A. Shiell (2000) Social capital and health promotion:a review, Social Science and Medicine 51(6): 871-8856 DSD Evaluation of Partners for Change: Government’s Strategyfor Support of the Community and Voluntary Sector

7 Blackburn S, Skerratt S, Warren M and Errington A, (2003) RuralCommunities and the Voluntary Sector; A Review of Literature;Per formance and Innovation Unit (1999) Rural Economies,London, Stationery Office, December 19998 Rural Community Network (2003) A Picture of Rural Change9 Rural Community Network (2003) A Picture of Rural Change10 Cairns, E. Van Til, J. and Williamson, A. (2003) Social Capital,Collectivism – Individualism and community background inNorthern Ireland. Centre for Voluntary Action Studies University ofUlster and Department of Urban Studies, Rutgers University, NewJersey, USA

44


a relatively low baseline. As discussed inearlier sections of this report, the level ofengagement between GovernmentDepartments and communities during the1980s was limited which exacerbated thesense of isolation in rural areas. However,through a process of support andfacilitation, a network of groups now existsto actively participate in governmentprogrammes and promote the developmentof rural communities. Therefore, althoughthis infrastructure has largely beenestablished, a rationale for interventionstill remains to maintain the levels ofcapacity building to enable ruralcommunities to participate fully in theeconomic, social and environmentaldevelopment of their area. In addition, therationale for intervention on social groundscan be tied to the need to maintaincommunity infrastructure in rural areasthat are characterised by division andpolarisation. Thus intervention can buildon existing social and workingrelationships and create the opportunity toestablish new inter-communityrelationships.

5.23 Lastly, it is important to note thatalthough the above discussion sets out theviews designed to support the rationale forrural policy intervention, it remains thecase that a rationale for each programmeor project must also be established overand above the rationale for the policy. Eachspecific programme under a rural policy‘umbrella’ will require its own uniquerationale to support an intervention.

Concluding comments5.24 A range of strategy documentssupport public sector intervention in ruralareas on the basis of perceived socialinclusion, labour market, environmentaland social/ community benefits. Theapproach adopted in this section is to lookbehind these justifications and to assesswhether there is an underlying rationale interms of the existence of market failure.

5.25 This section has demonstrated thatthe rationale for intervention in ruralareas is multi-faceted and complex. Inoverall terms there remains a reasonably

strong rationale for ‘state’ intervention inrural areas. There is in particular, a validlabour market rationale for intervention torestructure and stimulate competitivenessin the rural economy and although thesocial inclusion rationale is not as ‘clear-cut’, it is also relevant. In this regard therationale for intervention is focused oncertain targeted spatial areas. Specifically,the diversity of rural areas needs to beacknowledged and perhaps a distinctiondrawn between rural locations around theBMA and the southern and easternshores of Lough Neagh, and the more‘peripheral’ areas to the west.

5.26 The implication that could be takenfrom the above is of a narrower focus infuture with respect to the intervention.However, with regard to assessing thepositive ‘asset-based’ rather than a‘liability based’ approach, the evidencesuggests that there are strong positive andnegative externalities as well as economicefficiency arguments associated withintervention to ensure the protection,enhancement and sustainablemanagement of the rural environment. Inaddition, there is a rationale forintervention on social/ community groundsbut this has shifted from establishingcommunity infrastructure to one ofmaintenance and enablement. Together,therefore, the environmental or social/community arguments have increased theimportance of the ‘asset based’ approach.These issues are less ‘spatially linked’and have NI wide applicability thusbroadening the rationale for intervention.

5.27 In examining the way forward forrural development, the rationale forintervention is revisited in Section VIII toassist in framing the problem and contextfor policy development.

45


6 Effectiveness of rural policy to date

Introduction6.1 This section provides an overviewof the effectiveness of rural policy to date,drawing both on ‘hard evidence’ fromevaluations of initiatives and programmesand also on the more qualitative viewsand perceptions expressed through‘soundings’ with the individuals consultedthrough the research process. In contentterms it is focused primarily on theeffectiveness of the ‘core’ DARD ruraldevelopment initiatives as detailed in thescoping exercise set out in Section I.However it is difficult to provide ananalysis of effectiveness in this context,without reference to broader activityimplemented by other GovernmentDepartments and agencies in rural areas.Furthermore a proportion of the input intothe study (through ‘soundings’ and writtensubmissions) has been with respect to thisbroader activity in rural areas, and as suchthis section also makes reference to theseviews where relevant.

Review of relevantevaluations – activity levelsand outputs arising fromrural development initiatives6.2 By way of introduction it is usefulto reflect on the activity levels and outputsarising from the various rural developmentprogrammes and initiatives over the lastdecade. This analysis draws on theevaluation reports detailed in Table 6.11

and clearly it is important to highlight thatfor initiatives within the currentprogramming period it is only possible topoint to emerging activity and outputs,drawing on mid-term evaluation activity.

6.3 The following paragraphs set out inmore detail the activity levels and outputsarising from the various programmes andinitiatives as per the evaluation reports foreach of the relevant programmes above.

However, it should be noted that since theabove evaluation reports were publishedthere has been significant progress withvarious programmes, in terms of numbersof projects funded and project spend,which is referred to where relevant.

6.4 It is important to highlight thatsome of the reports refer to individualprogramme evaluations (e.g. LEADER IIand LEADER+), while others represent‘bundled’ evaluations that encompass arange of initiatives and programmesfunded by a common source. The EAGGFMTE is a key example of this in that itencompasses a high level review of theEAGGF Measures, for the period 2002–2006, that are within the scope of thisstudy. This includes by way of examples ahigh level review of activity and emergingoutputs from the LFAs and Agri-Environment Schemes, neither of whichhave been subject to recent individual‘isolated’ evaluation activity to date.2 Themain implication from this observation is

Table 6.1: Overview of evaluation reports reviewed

that the extent and ‘depth’ of evidenceavailable with respect to the various ruraldevelopment programmes and initiativesvaries considerably. That said there is stillmerit in presenting an overview of all theevidence currently available in terms ofactivity and outputs arising frominvestment in rural development activity.This is summarised below under theheading of each of the programmes/initiatives.

Rural Development Programme1994–996.5 The RDP, 1994–99, resulted in thecreation of 1,699 full-time equivalent(FTEs) as shown in Table 6.2. Thesefigures exclude the number of jobssafeguarded.

E NOITAULAV R TROPE P EMMARGOR / I DEREVOCEVITAITIN

fonoitaulavetsop-xe)1002(CwPIIREDAEL

emmargorpREDAELeritnE

laruRINfoydutsenilesaB)7991(CwP99-4991emmargorPtnempoleveD

PDReritnE

INfonoitaulavemret-diM)9991(CwP99-4991PDR

PDReritnE

INfonoitaulavetsop-xE)3002(CwP99-4991emmargorPtnempoleveDlaruR

dnalarutlucirgadnaDRAPSdnaACSEP,IIREDAEL(PDReritnE)IIGERRETNIdna,IECAEPrednuserusaeMlarur

AIIIGERRETNIfoETM)3002(CwP larutlucirgaehtylno,revewoh;emmargorPIIIGERRETNIeritnEtnavelereraIIdnaIECAEPfoserusaeMlarurdna

ECAEPfonoitaulavetsop-xe)3002(CwPIIECAEPfoETMdnaI

ehtylno,revewoh;emmargorpIIdnaIECAEPeritnEtnavelereraIIdnaIECAEPfoserusaeMlarurdnalarutlucirga

+REDAEL)4002(gnitlusnoCadeiPZTDETM

+REDAEL

mret-diM)4002(gnitlusnoCadeiPZTDehtybdednufserusaeMfonoitaulave

FGGAE

6002-0002noitalugeRtnempoleveDlaruReritnEdnasAFL,tnemnorivne-irgA:serusaeMgniynapmoccA(larurdnalarutlucirgaehtsedulcnioslasihT.)yrtseroF

PSBdnaIIECAEPrednuserusaeM

mret-diM)3002(gnitlusnoCadeiPZTDFSCINfonoitaulave

serusaeMlarurdnalarutlucirgaehtylno,revewoh;FSCeritnEydutssihtottnavelereraIIECAEPdnaPSBfo

mret-diM)3002(gnitlusnoCadeiPZTDPSBINfonoitaulave

ottnavelersi4ytiroirPylno,revewoh;emmargorPPSBeritnEydutssiht

1 The majority of the factual findings in this Section are based onindependent evaluation reports, which were completed during2003/4. However, as these evaluations were finalised before theReview of Rural policy was commissioned, it was evident thatadditional information presented to Monitoring Committees andmade available to DARD in the interim should be considered aspart of this Review. Such data is reflected in this Section whereappropriate

2 It is understood that the LFA scheme has not been evaluatedsince 1998 when Queens University undertook an evaluationexercise of the predecessor scheme to LFA’s (Davis, J (1999) ‘Aneconomic evaluation of HiU Livestock Compensatory AllowancesScheme in NI’)

46


6.6 It is important to highlight that theRDP, 1994–99, was not entirely, orexclusively, a job creation programme andthat employment creation was only oneaspect of the programme. Another keyaspect related to training and educationoutputs, the scale of which is set out inTable 6.3. This shows that the RDPresulted in over 3,400 projects beingfunded and over 2,000 rural dwellerscompleting training and further educationcourses.

6.7 Furthermore the ex-post evaluationof LEADER II concluded that the ‘LEADERII programme achieved more than itinitially anticipated in terms of trainingprovision, networking, job creation/maintenance and tourism outcomes’.Over and above the 750 jobs created theprogramme was successful in achievingthe following training outputs:

• Training of 3,405 participants (60%of which led to an accreditedtraining output);

• Delivery of 29,018 man days oftraining; and

• Each participant received onaverage 8.5 days of training.

6.8 The main beneficiaries of thetraining activity were the farmingcommunity with the majority of the coursesfocused on IT literacy. In addition LEADERII was successful in delivering the followingoutputs:

• 327 farm diversification projects;• 102 tourism attractions created;• 39 tourism attractions upgraded;• 886 tourist beds created; and• Assistance to 928 firms.

6.9 Finally, the evaluation evidencesuggests that LEADER II was successful interms of cost-effectiveness. Of the £80mallocated to the Rural DevelopmentProgramme (RDP), £14m was allocated toLEADER II and this was associated with ahigh proportion of the overall RDP relatedjobs. This led to LEADER II in NI beingacknowledged as a ‘very cost effectiveprogramme and one of the top threeprogrammes of its kind across Europe’.

Rural Development Programmeand Rural DevelopmentRegulation Plan 2000–2006

LEADER+6.10 The LEADER+ programme aims to:‘increase the economic and employmentcontribution that very small businesses,including small farms, make to the ruraleconomy by encouraging local partnershipsto test our new approaches to micro-business development and, wherebeneficial, to work in collaboration withsimilar partnerships in other rural areas’(DARD LEADER+ OP).

6.11 The mid-term evaluation (MTE) ofLEADER+ was completed in December2003 (DTZ Pieda 2003) and the findingsshow that at this point in time 103projects were approved, which equated toa total grant distribution of £1.5m (basedon an average grant of £14k). The totalproportion of funding allocated at the timeof the MTE was only 12% of the overall

Table 6.2: Jobs created by each component part of RDP, 1994-99

PDR TNEMELE J DETAERCSBO ETF( S)

8.1.4erusaeM–DRAPS *a/n

9.1.4erusaeM–DRAPS 5.767

tnempoleveDcimonocElaruR–RPPSS 05

snoitcAdesaBytinummoC–RPPSS 84

IIREDAEL 057

3.1erusaeM–GERRETNI 5.83

ACSEP 54

T LATO 996,1

* tnemelenoitaercbojondahhcussadnagnidliubyticapacnodesucofyltceridsawerusaemsihT99-4991PDRfotsop-xe)2002(CwP:ecruoS

Table 6.3: Other impacts from 1994-99 RDP

O STUPTU A STNEMEVEIHC

tnempolevedlarurnidevlovnispuorgdesab-ytinummoC 054

nekatrednusemmargorpnoitaminaytinummoC 871

saeralarurdegatnavdasidnidehsilbatseseigetartsdesab-aerA 9

dehsilbatsespuorgnoitcAlacoL 51

dehsilbatseseidobevitcelloclaruR 9

detelpmocsesruocnoitacudErehtruFdnagniniarT 093

gniniartgnitelpmocelpoeplarurforebmuN 000,2

detroppusstcejorplaudividnI 004,3

detroppusstcejorpnoitarenegerdesab-ytinummoC 701

detaercsessenisubweN 154

yteicoslarurfostcepsanotuodeirracstcejorphcraeserrojaM 5

60-1002ygetartSPDRIN)1002(DRAD:ecruoS

47


allocation to LEADER+, and therefore inessence the MTE was undertaken at avery early stage in the programme. One ofthe main findings of the report was thelack of activity on the ground to evaluate,and as such the analysis related more toLEADER+ processes and delivery, ratherthan outputs and outcomes. The reportconcluded that a mid-term ‘update’ shouldbe undertaken by the end of 2004 toassess the outputs achieved by thoseprojects funded.

6.12 The LEADER+ MonitoringCommittee endorsed the report on themid-term evaluation of LEADER+programme in April 2004. It established aReview Group, which reported on therecommendations, which should beimplemented and the method of doingthis. At the date of the last MonitoringCommittee meeting in November 2004,the total proportion of funding allocatedwas some 48% of the LEADER+ budget,which represents a substantial increasefrom the 12% reported in the MTE inDecember 2003. This represented 402LOOs with some £5.6m of LOO’s actuallyaccepted. There are additionalcommitments in respect of technicalassistance for LEADER+ groups runningcosts and publicity costs.

EAGGF Measures6.13 The mid-term evaluation ofMeasures funded by the EAGGF 2000–2006 has recently been completed (DTZPieda 2004), which provides an insightinto progress of Measures under the NIRural Development Programme 2000–2006 and the NI Rural DevelopmentRegulation Plan. Again given the mid-termstage of the evaluation, the report is bynecessity based on the limited outputsrealised to date. In broad terms theevaluation report concluded that theEAGGF Measures are generallyperforming well, particularly givencircumstances such as the outbreak of theFoot and Mouth Disease in 2001 and theuncertainty of CAP Reform. However, morerecent data from Monitoring Committeedata show that some EAGGF Measureshave progressed significantly since the

EAGGF MTE. In particular the number ofPeace II EAGGF approvals under‘Adaptation and Development of RuralAreas’ increased from 108 LOOs to 433LOOs between the time of the EAGGF MTE

and the latest Peace II MonitoringCommittee. Also the number of ruraldwellers involved in ICT training coursesincreased from 360 to 3,020. Theseoutputs are set out in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4: Quantitative findings from MTE EAGGF Measures (2000-2006)

tuptuO stnemeveihcAsa(3002yb

FGGAErepnaJETM

)4002

stnemeveihcA4002-dimyb

tsetalrepsa(gnirotinom

morfatad)DRAD

:)IIECAEP(sgnidloHlarutlucirgAnitnemtsevnI

spuorgdednuffosrebmemeraohwsremrafforebmuN sremraf332 sremraf468

sremraFgnuoYfopugnitteS *a/n *a/n

:)6.1MIIECAEPdna1.4MPSB(gniniarT

PSB()esruocrepsyad01.va(nosreprepsyadgniniartforebmuN)1.4M

573,63 191,74

ECAEP(detelpmoc/decnemmocsesruocgniniartTCIforebmuN)6.1M

63 203

)esruocrep01egareva(sesruocTCInistnapicitrapforebmuN 063 020,3

:)PSB(sdooglarutlucirgafognitekramdnagnissecorpgnivorpmI

sessenisub/stcejorpdevorppaforebmuN 62 25

ECAEP&PSB(saeralarurfotnempoleved&noitatpadagnitomorP:)II

sOOLgnitpeccastcejorpdetaler-PSBforebmuN )lla(69 )ylnoDDR(09)2.4M(62+

sOOLgnitpeccastcejorpdetaler-IIECAEPforebmuN 801 334

:)ETMFGGAErepsa()PRDR(saerAderuovaFsseL

)smraflatotfo%(ADSnismrafforebmuN 998,01)%2.83(

ofniAFLtsetaL)a/n

)smraflatotfo%(ADnismrafforebmuN )%4.13(669,8

)smraflatotfo%(AFLnismrafforebmuN )%6.96(846,8

:)PRDR(semehcstnemnorivne-irgA

SMCnirebmuN 241,2 538,2

SFOnirebmuN 08 18

ASEnirebmuN 781,4 479,3

ASEweNnirebmuN 653 334

:)PRDR(yrtseroF

)SGW(detnalpdnaldoowwenfoaerA ah347,1 ah214,2

)SPWF(detnalpdnaldoowwenfoaerA ah008,1)xorppa(

ah371,2)xorppa(

dnalasiarppacimonocednanoitatlusnocottcejbussawtI.dehsilbatseneebteytonsahsremrafgnuoyrofemehcsehT*)4002etaldehcnualeboteudsi

FGGAEybdednufserusaeMETM)3002(ZTD:ecruoS

48


BSP6.14 The BSP MTE set out progress withrespect to measures funded under Priority4 ‘Agriculture, Rural Development, Forestryand Fishing’. The report illustrates thatPriority 4 had the lowest proportion ofspend amongst all the Priorities at theMTE stage and stated that progress was‘very patchy’. At the MTE stage 7Measures under Priority 4 had no spendrecorded, however, the latest data fromDARD shows that currently only 3Measures have no spend recorded underBSP Priority 4.

6.15 Therefore updated figures providedby DARD show that the spend figureswhere not as poor as those highlighted inthe BSP MTE. In particular, more recentdata on these 7 Measures shows that:

• Measure 4.1: Training: £2.6mspent as per November 2004 withan additional £6m predicted for thenear future;

• Measure 4.4: Farm Relief: nospend to date, although £0.24mhas been committed;

• Measure 4.8: Diversification ofagricultural activities; no spend todate, although £0.77m has beencommitted;

• Measure 4.9: Development ofinfrastructure connected with thedevelopment of agriculture: nocommitments to date;

• Measure 4.10: Encouragement oftourist and craft activities:£0.06m spend to date of the£0.8m committed;

• Measure 4.11: Protection of theEnvironment, Improvement ofAnimal Welfare: £0.04m spend todate of the £1.35m committed;and

• Measure 4.12: FinancialEngineering: £3.02m spent of the£4.42m committed.

6.16 The latest data from DARDindicates that under Priority 4 there were91 LOOs issued.

Peace II6.17 As set out in Section I there areseveral rural development Measures(under a number of Priorities), which areencompassed under Peace II. Again due tothe slow progress with most of theMeasures associated with this study, thePeace II MTE, completed by PwC in 2003,was unable to reflect outputs or outcomes.However, latest data from DARD reflect amuch more positive picture. A summary ofthe progress with respect to the relevantmeasures at the time of the Peace II MTEin comparison with the latest dataavailable from DARD is set out in Table6.5.

Less Favoured Areas6.18 The Less Favoured Areas (LFAs)

Compensatory Scheme was introduced in2001 to replace the Hill LivestockCompensatory Allowance (HLCA) Scheme.Whilst the numbers of farmers claimingsupport dropped at the time of the changefrom HLCA to LFA (attributed to minimumstocking densities and shifts in farmingtypes), the evidence suggests that thenumber of farms in LFAs had onlydecreased slightly over the period 2000–2002 in line with the number of lowlandfarms. A survey conducted as part of theEAGGF MTE revealed that of the 286farmers consulted:

• 72% of LFA farmers indicated thatthey had a better understanding ofthe environmental impacts of highlivestock density as a result ofparticipating in the LFA scheme;

Table 6.5: Progress with Peace II measures

M ERUSAE A YBSTNEMEVEIHC 3002 ( SA

REP FGGAE ETM J NA )4002A DIMYBSTNEMEVEIHC 4002- ( SA

ATADGNIROTINOMTSETALREP

MORF )DRAD

larurehtrofsecivrescisaB:01.1Mnoitalupopdnaymonoce

slavorppaweF dnadetpeccasOOL66%67(dettimmocm153.1£

)tnemtimmoc

tnempolevedmsiruotelbaniatsuS:b2.1Mlarutlucdnalarutanderahsnodesab

secruoser

emitehttallatadnepsoNforebmunhgihatubETMfo

eroM.deviecersnoitacilppaybnekatrednukrowtnecer

TRRNehttahtsetacidniCwPaotffotogspihsrentrap

detlusersihtdnatratswolsfognissecorpwolsehtni

snoitacilppa

m9.01£,dnepsm3.1£dnaFDREmorf(dettimmoc

)FGGAE

)TCI(sremrafrofgniniarT:6.1M ehttadevorppastcejorp71dnepsontubegatsETM

m5.3£;dnepsm6.1£dettimmoc

larutlucirgafonoitacifisreviD:7.1Motesolcseitivitcadnaseitivitca

roseitivitcaelpitlumedivorpoterutlucirgasemocnievitanretla

egatsETMtaslavorppa8dnepsontub

m5.1£;dettimmocm98.6£dedulcxem585.0£(dneps

)secnavda

dnatsiruotroftnemegaruocnE:01.2Mseitivitcatfarc

egatsETMtadnepsdetimiL m4.0£;dettimmocm9.0£dneps

fotnempoleveddnanoitavoneR:9.2Mnoitavresnocdnanoitcetorpdnasegalliv

egatirehlarurehtfo

gnissergorpsawerusaeMlaitnatsbusahiwllew

ETMtadnepsfonoitroporpegats

m9.0£;dettimmocm8.1£)dneps

gnikool-drawroFdnadrawtuO:2.4Masanoigerehtgnicnahne–msiruoT

noitanitsedtsiruot

a/n m840.2£;dnepsm24.0£)FDRE(dettimmoc

;tnempolevedlarurdnaerutlucirgA:6.5Mnoitarepoocredrob-ssorC

dnepsontubslavorppaowT %17(dettimmocm3.0£)dettimmoc

49


and• 5% indicated that they had

changed their farming practicesas a result of participating in thescheme. The study stated thatthese results tally with thequalitative evidence, which showsthat the shift from HLCA to LFAhas not caused farmers to changefarming practices in anysignificant way.

Agri-Environment6.19 The Agri-Environment Schemes inNI include the ESA; CMS and OFS as setout in Section I. Based on evidence fromthe EAGGF MTE the ESA and CMS appearto be working well, and are viewed assuccessful mechanisms in encouragingenvironmentally friendly techniques,focusing on prevention rather than cure.However, the OFS has not been assuccessful as anticipated evidenced by therelatively low uptake figures detailedbelow. In summary the:

• ESA has been more successfulthan anticipated with 5,000 ESAagreements expected to be inplace by 2006;

• CMS is expected by DARD toexceed its initial target of 4,125members by 2006. The growth ofthe scheme to date has beenrestricted by the modulated fundingavailable. The increase in VoluntaryModulation rate announced inNovember 2004 has enabled theoriginal target to be increased to atleast 7,000 participants. DARDanticipate, given the currentapplication rates, that this targetwill be achieved by October 2006;and

• OFS has experienced very lowlevels of uptake and participanttargets have been reducedaccordingly from 1,000 to 100 by2006. This was partly due to theFoot and Mouth Disease Outbreakin 2001, which reduced the organicproduction momentum that was

developing in Northern Ireland anduncertainty in relation to thecontinuation of an organic premiumprice in a market characterised bysome over-supply. It is ourunderstanding that DARD, inrecognition of these difficulties hastaken action to encourage thedevelopment of the organiclivestock sector, through theOrganic Farming (Conversion ofAnimal Housing) Scheme. AnOrganic Lead Group will also meetfor the first time in January 2005with the remit to re-invigorate theorganic sector.

6.20 Lastly, there is an Entry LevelCountryside Management Scheme, whichhas been ratified by the Rural StakeholderForum, which subject to EU Commissionand DFP approval represents an additionalagri-environment scheme. This schemeshould open in 2005 with a target of7,000 participants by 2006.

INTERREG IIIA6.21 The mid-term evaluation ofINTERREG IIIA was completed by PwC inNovember 2003 at which stage there wereno applications recorded on the centraldatabase under Measure 1.4 ‘RuralDevelopment Measures’. However, PwCwere commissioned by the ImplementingBodies to carry out an assessment ofapplications to Measure 1.4 in February2004 by which stage there were 18applications to the Measure. The latestresults from DARD show that there havebeen 5 LOOs approved representing acommitment of e5.1m to Measure 1.4,which represents one third of themeasure. In addition, one project iscurrently subject to economic appraisaland if approved would represent a furthercommitment of e1m.

Conclusion comments6.22 The figures presented above withrespect to the activity and outputs arisingfrom rural development initiatives indicatein broad terms that the 1994–99programming period was successful inachieving the anticipated levels of

activity and outputs, although much of itwas ‘back-end’ loaded within the period. Inaddition considerable progress was madenot just in terms of initial ‘animation’ andcapacity building in rural areas, but interms of job creation even though the RDP1994–99 was not exclusively a jobcreation programme. In addition there wereparticular successes evident withincomponent parts of the RDP 1994–99notably LEADER II, which was recognisedas ‘one of the top three programmes of itskind across Europe’.

6.23 Within the current programmingperiod (2000–2006) one of the mainmessages emanating from the variousevaluations is of slowness to achieve realmomentum in terms of both approvalsand expenditure during the earlier days.However, there were some exceptions tothis (e.g. the ESA initiative within the Agri-Environment schemes which is likely toexceed initial targets set). The broadmessage at the MTE stage was one ofconcern relating to the ability to meetsome of the forward targets, however,updated figures from DARD for the interimperiod between the completion of themid-term evaluations and the submissionof this report indicate a more positivepicture.

Perceived effectiveness ofrural development activityto date – research findings6.24 The analysis above centred only onthe quantitative dimension of activity andoutputs arising from rural developmentinitiatives to date. A key aspect of thisanalysis relates to the views andperceptions of all the individuals who havecontributed to the research processes forthis review to date. For ease of referencethese views on effectiveness arestructured under two headings:

• Perceived effectiveness of thepolicy/ strategy and programmingapproach; and

• Perceived effectiveness ofimplementation and deliveryarrangements.

50


Perceived effectiveness ofthe policy/ strategy andprogramming approach6.25 At the outset it is relevant tohighlight that the broad consensus fromthe research suggests that NI has not hada rural ‘policy’ per se to date. Rather thesituation is a policy of delivery within thebounds of DARD’s Rural DevelopmentProgramme, with activity being almostentirely funding led (linked predominantlyto EU monies3), rather than demand led.There was however extensive consultationon the focus of the current RDP 2000–2006. Despite this the prevailing view isthat there has been no ‘evidence-based’approach to rural policy making in NIbased on a process of ongoing researchinto the needs of rural areas informingpolicy/ programming activity. In additionthe absence of a generally agreeddefinition of rural has further exacerbatedthe effectiveness of policy making todate. These issues/ shortcomings are notunique to NI, in that they were highlightedas key issues within the UK around thetime of the establishment of Defra andsubsequently in the Haskins Report4.

6.26 Looking back there is a view that inpolicy terms that ‘ground has been lost’. Itis evident from the ‘soundings’ that it isperceived that some of the vibrancy andinnovation in the early days of ruraldevelopment activity has not beenmaintained. In particular individuals citethe ABSAGs as an innovative andpioneering policy instrument to bring aboutlocal partnerships and a commitment byGovernment via DARD to resource theaction plans. Building on this the LEADERprogramme (I and II) is perceived as beinghighly successful in embedding theprinciple of ‘subsidiarity’ within the ruralpolicy framework, in enabling widespreadengagement of LAGS and OCBs across NI,and in providing a mechanism for the

involvement of the private sector in ruraldevelopment. There is also an evidentsense of disappointment that in policydevelopment past successes (such asthose cited above) are often overlooked –in effect ‘lessons are not learned’. Thereis a need for a ‘loop’ where policyinstruments recognise and implement bestpractice.

6.27 The availability of EU funds isbroadly acknowledged as instrumental tothe fact that NI has had ‘any ruraldevelopment at all’. However counteringthis the view prevails that activity in NI todate has been too EU led, with potentiallya lost opportunity to leverage regional aidmonies that would have enabled a broaderapproach to the development andregeneration of rural areas (beyond theemphasis on EU funds within whichagriculture has been a primary driver thusfar). Linked to this the research suggests alack of strategic integration acrossGovernment with respect to ruraldevelopment policy issues. This isattributed by some of those interviewed tothe absence of a Rural White Paper for NI.Furthermore the existing structures withinthe RDP (the Inter-Departmental SteeringGroup) are perceived not to have beensufficiently visible or pro-active to bringabout the desired level of strategicintegration.

6.28 In the context of strategicintegration one of the main perceivedfailings of rural policy to date in NI hasbeen the inability to truly engage thefarming community in rural developmentactivity. One of the main issues withrespect to this is that the farmingcommunity are perceived to have viewedrural development as a threat rather thanas an opportunity. This could be partlylinked back to the view cited above thatthe rural development activity in NI hasbeen highly centred on EU funding whichoriginated in an agricultural context, ratherthan a broader rural or regionaldevelopment agenda. As such this has ledto tensions about diversion of ‘farmingmoney’ into rural development and theperceived inability to fully integrate

agriculture and rural development withinthe RDP. The absence of strategicintegration on rural policy issues acrossGovernment, which could have enabled abroader approach, is cited as one factorthat has contributed to the inability to fullyengage the farming community in ruraldevelopment. For the future, as is detailedfurther in Section VIII, a broader approachto rural development is viewed as apriority, in order to serve the social andeconomic needs of the rural population atlarge and protect and enhance the ruralenvironment. The need for this broaderapproach is also strongly reflected in thecomments included in Figure 6.1, on theperceived effectiveness of the policy/strategy and programming approachapplied to rural development thus far.

6.29 In the context of a broaderapproach it is necessary to highlight viewson the Regional Development Strategy(RDS), which is perceived by some to bethe vision for NI as a region. The ‘ruralchapter’ (Chapter 8), which couldconstitute the vision or the basis of apolicy framework for rural areas of NI, isperceived to have been a ‘last minuteaddition’, included to counteract fears thatthe RDS would ‘read as an urban policydocument’. In addition there remains aperception that there is potentially aconflict in the RDS, which purports topromote the rural nature of NI but whichconcentrates resources in main hubs andcentres to the potential detriment of ruralareas. Furthermore it is evident from theresearch process that the RDS is notperceived to have ‘sufficient teeth’ – ineffect Government Departments andagencies ‘pay due regard to it’ but it is nota mandatory requirement. It is alsoperceived by some to be a document thathas more relevance within the politicalframework of a devolved administration,where it was conceived and developed inthe first instance.

6.30 However the broad consensusmoving forward is that the linkage andsynergies between regional and ruralpolicy (which are perceived to be limited todate) should be a priority for the future.

3 The role of the International Fund for Ireland alongside EU fundsis acknowledged as being key to date in matching EU funds and insustaining the regeneration effort over the last decade4 Haskins, C (2003) Rural Delivery Review – A report on thedelivery of government policies in rural England

51


NI has not had a rural policy per se…what wehave had is a policy of delivery within thebounds of DARD’s Rural DevelopmentProgramme…this has constrained the extentto which a much broader approach to ruraldevelopment, providing strategic integrationacross Government Departments andleverage of wider funding has been possible.

We have failed to truly engage the farmingcommunity in rural development policy…thereis a need to change mindsets and encouragethem to see it as an opportunity rather than athreat. Farmers still rely heavily onsubsidies…a truly integrated ruraldevelopment policy…incorporating issuessuch as agri-environment could address this.

The absence of a proper ‘evidence based ruralpolicy’ has been one of the most significantgaps to date.

We need a more targeted and informedapproach. Some groups in the rural populationsuch as women, small farmers, the young andthe long-term unemployed have been under-represented in the process of the 1994-99RDP…action should be taken to encouragethe participation of such groups.

Ground has been lost on the policy front…theearly days of the RDP was well ahead of itstime and truly innovative in its approach andwas not risk averse. It provided for the firsttime a truly bottom-up involvement by localcommunities in broad based regenerationactivities. On the political front the RDP in itsformative years encouraged the involvementof communities who had hitherto felt excludedfrom mainstream government support. Thisundoubtedly contributed to and laid thefoundations for early peace-building efforts inthe 1990s.

At the Inter-Departmental level urban issuestend to dominate within the debate…DARDhave been less effective in getting rural policyon the agenda.

Co-ordination of policy has been poor withrespect to the needs of rural areas. Theviability of rural areas can best be achievedthrough an integrated approach, which targetsmultiple sectors in the rural economy. Theseshould be based on strengthened local/regional co-ordination and managementstructures and be open to bottom-upparticipation of local actors, starting from thepolicy/programming phase.

From a policy perspective DARD largely followsan agricultural agenda but if funding isavailable in other areas they will ‘slot in’. Assuch the strategic perspective is lost incertain sectors. DARD can ‘react’ to agri-foodagri-environment but not to land use and

social change. Rural societies are facingunprecedented change in terms ofrestructuring of society, pressures andtensions are identified in rural areas such asagri-restructuring, migratory pressures in andout, changing land use and the role of olderpeople. A much broader integrated policyapproach is required taking account ofcommunity development and divisions in ruralsociety.

Rural areas are not just about farmers, ruralspace has certain products that can bedeveloped….there are opportunities foreducation, health and tourism, which are notintegrated in an overall vision. In otherDepartments there can be more interest thanin DARD in taking forward a broader approachto rural development. However theseDepartments have an expectation that DARDis doing the work but DARD is nervous aboutstepping over the boundary. If DARD takes thelead in a broader approach to ruraldevelopment policy it will be supported inengagement from other Departments.

Environmental policy has little interface withRural Development policy in DARD – they aretwo separate bits, due to the historicalbackground and separate fundingarrangements. Some environmentalstakeholders (government and non-government) are critical of rural developmentactivity in DARD for excluding environment andfarming interests and concerns. Theenvironmental and land managementelements of DARD’s RDP and the ruraldevelopment elements in BSP and PEACE IIshould be better integrated in future.

The policy has been centred on farminginterests over and above all other interests.The environment is usually only considered inthe context of providing a legislativeframework. If DARD were more pro-active andforward looking in policy terms it would takedecisions based more upon long- termsustainability rather than the immediateinterests of the industry. For example, someDARD schemes still promote intensive farmingwhereas the Water Framework Directive andthe Nitrates Directive will requireextensification. Farmers will have realdifficulties changing direction. Thegovernment should have anticipated theunsustainability of the path that farmers werebeing encouraged towards, and been a policyleader in seeking to turn this around, ratherthan simply reacting to each newenvironmental instrument as it came along.

Rural development is something much broaderthan the DARD perspective on it. They focustoo closely on EU funds and funding outputs/spend, not rural policy outcomes. NI musthave a strategic long term rural vision to

maximise environmental, economic and socialcapital in NI – this needs a vision withmechanisms embracing transport, education,broad economic diversification and support forall rural businesses, to help them realise theirpotential across the spectrum, not justfocused on farming. This requires afundamental analysis of the region, its needsand how to tackle them.

There haven’t been many successes in pastrural development policy because there hasn’tbeen a coherent policy with a real vision, andno rural ownership of policy. The EU fundshave generated some good local projects (e.g.LEADER II), but they haven’t made a hugedifference to the rural economy, and in somerural communities there is widespreadscepticism about the outcomes of all thisinvestment – lots of fluffy stuff, often a wasteof money.

There is a need for more joined-up thinking.For instance with respect to the rights ofaccess to the countryside in NI, which needsaddressed urgently, as it impacts on thepotential for tourism. Perhaps as a part offarmer’s contracts for other schemes (e.g.ESA, CMS) should be that they agree to openup any uncultivated, upland farmland foraccess.

Access to services is not addressed in anintegrated way. Closing schools and hospitalsis a serious issue in rural areas and thisneeds to be addressed as part of ruraldevelopment. Now the closest hospital is over40 miles (Antrim or Enniskillen). It isimportant to prevent the closure of theseservices and facilities as they have a knockon effect on other services – this will createrural depopulation (with people leaving andalso people will not move into an area whichhas no services).

Rural development has not been an easyprocess in NI. DARD has faced criticism forhow it has implemented the policy. Howeverthe task it faced was difficult not leastbecause of poor policy direction and muddledthinking in Brussels. The challenge is toidentify an approach that will deliver, but thisis as much an EU problem as it is a challengefor policy makers with respect to ruralcommunities here.

The difficulties with rural policy in NI are notunique. One of the most serious issuesacross the EU is a lack of focus about howsuccessful rural development is defined. It(rural development) is a classic example of ajourney that everyone agrees is a good idea,but where there is no road map or agreementon the final destination.

Figure 6.1: Views on the Effectiveness of the Policy/ Strategy and Programming Approach to date

52


DRD, as detailed in Section VIII, areembarking on an update or ‘focusedassessment’ of the RDS involvingconsultation across Government (includinglocal government). Clearly there is anopportunity for DARD to feed in to thisprocess, to ensure that the rural chapter(Chapter 8) is reflective of the needs andpriorities of rural areas highlighted throughthis study. This opportunity is perceived tobe important not just in terms of ‘updatingthe rural chapter’ but in terms of puttingfuture rural policy on a much broaderregional agenda. In turn this is importantto enhance the ability to bid for regionalaid/funds to meet the needs of rural areasthat potentially may not fit within thebounds EU funding (i.e. the new RuralDevelopment Regulation as detailed inSection VIII).

6.31 In the context of the perceived lackof strategic integration on rural policy, it isrelevant to review the perceivedeffectiveness of the concept of ruralproofing to date. Rural Proofing is definedas:

‘a process which ensures that all relevantExecutive policies are examined carefullyand objectively to determine whether or notthey have a different impact in rural areasfrom that elsewhere, because of theparticular characteristics of rural areas’.

6.32 From this assessment policyadjustments may be made to reflect ruralneeds and in particular, to ensure thatpublic services are accessible on a fairbasis to the rural community. The aim ofeffective rural proofing, therefore, is thatall significant policy proposals,consultative papers and proposals for newlegislation specifically identify any likelyimpact which that policy might have onrural areas or communities, and offer anassessment of how any differential impactcan be addressed.

6.33 With a view to ensuring that therural proofing initiative was effectivelydeveloped, a Rural Proofing SteeringGroup (RPSG) was established in 2002.Chaired by the Minister for Agriculture and

Rural Development and senior officialsrepresenting each Department, the RPSGaims to monitor and evaluate theimplementation of rural proofing5. In thisrole the RPSG is tasked with gatheringinformation from all Departments relatingto:

• Number and nature of policiessubject to rural proofing;

• Number of policies adapted ordelivery mechanisms altered tospecifically meet rural needs; and

• Examples of best practice, flexibledelivery or service provision in ruralareas.

6.34 The Rural Proofing Annual Report2003/046 examines progress to dateunder each of these three headings. Withregard to the number and nature ofpolicies subject to rural proofing, it isreported that 64 policy areas have beenidentified across a range of policy issueswith Departments either illustrating howrural proofing is being considered in theirongoing policy areas, or demonstratinghow the direction of their work is alreadyshaped by the rural dimension. In terms ofadapting delivery mechanisms, the reporthighlights a mixture of issues where ruralconsiderations have already been integralto policy and those that are at the earlystage of assessment. In total 51 policyareas are highlighted showing evidence ofhaving been structured to specifically meetrural needs or where assessment of ruralcommunities is being factored into thedevelopment process. Finally, the reportalso details examples of current bestpractice in current, developing andproposed policies. By way of examplesthese include:

• DEL in partnership with theNorthern Ireland Higher EducationCouncil, has recently published aWidening Access Expert Group toReview its widening access to

higher education. It is understoodthat this review will take intoaccount rural needs;

• DE is currently providing transportassistance for pupils living in ruralareas. Pupils in rural areas who arenot eligible for free transport canavail of concessionary seats (at nocost) on Education and LibraryBoard Vehicles where there isspare capacity. Many parents ofpupils in rural areas are thereforeable to send their children toschool without incurring anytransport costs; and

• DCAL has commissioned researchinto barriers to participation inculture, arts and leisure to ‘providean in-depth assessment of thefactors which inhibit and preventparticipation. The report includes asection on specific issues affectingpeople from the rural community.

Figure 6.2 Views on Rural Proofing

Rural Proofing should be more pro-active andindependent of Government; one of DARD’sown schemes was turned down whichhighlights the need for an independentapproach

Why do we have it? There is no EU policy forrural proofing

What about urban proofing?

We need to find methodologies to ease theprocess of rural proofing, we cannotundertake a survey every time … we need aproxy

Where does rural proofing fit with new TSNand Anti-Poverty policies? It needs betterintegrated

There have been some debates about theextent to which rural proofing can influencedecision making…and whose responsibilityit was to ensure that rural proofing isundertaken

DARD is pushing for rural proofing – butnothing is happening with the concept.

5 In addition, a Rural Proofing Unit was established to takeforward the work of the RPSG, to prepare policy guidance, assistcolleagues across all Departments and provide training6 Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (2004) RuralProofing Annual Report 2003/04

53


6.35 Despite the progress reportedabove the research conducted for thisreview has highlighted a level ofdisappointment with the application ofrural proofing and the extent to which ithas been able to effectively influencedecision-making (see Figure 6.2). Inparticular there are concerns regarding thelack of resources/ funds to addressissues identified as a result of undertakingthe rural proofing process coupled withperceived difficulties about the‘mechanics’ of undertaking rural proofing.In some circles the concept is viewed as‘flawed’ in that there is no parallel ‘urbanproofing’, highlighting the need for betterintegration between the rural and urbanregeneration agendas moving forward. In asense there is still perceived to be astrong sense of competition and rivalrybetween urban and rural areas in theeconomic realm. However the reality isthat rural and urban areas depend on eachother and as such there is a need for agreater level of strategic policy integration.

Perceived effectiveness ofimplementation and deliveryarrangements6.36 One of the main messages withrespect to the perceived effectiveness ofthe implementation and deliveryarrangements is of overly complicated andoverly bureaucratic delivery arrangements(which is an issue common to all EUfunds). In effect there is perceived to be a‘bewildering array’ of funding opportunitiesand related structures for ruraldevelopment in NI. Linked to this aremultiple strategy and programmedocuments (required to comply withfunding draw down requirements), whichdemonstrate limited linkages betweenthem. Importantly at an overall level this isperceived to have resulted in confusion forthe customers of rural development policyand perceived inefficiencies in runningmultiple separate schemes. It is perceivedthat the new single EU fund for ruraldevelopment could go some way towardssorting out this complexity and confusion,but that some refinement of deliveryarrangements within NI will also berequired.

6.37 The issue of the ‘overlycomplicated’ delivery structures is wellrecognised and has been highlighted inseveral programme strategy and evaluationdocuments over recent years. It is alsoclearly evident in the views of those whohave input to the study thus far asillustrated in Figure 6.3.

6.38 It is evident from the variousprogramme evaluations that the ‘overlycomplicated’ delivery arrangements hasactually impacted on the quality of serviceprovided to customers in the ruralcommunity. By way of example theLEADER+ MTE highlights that theproliferation of local delivery mechanismswithin NI over the last 7–8 years haseroded some of the uniqueness of theLEADER approach, in relation to area-based local partnerships and as a result itis suggested that LEADER+ is now lesseasily differentiated from other EUprogramme interventions. The main factor,within LEADER, which still provides adegree of differentiation is the focus onthe rural community, although even herethe creation under Peace II of the NaturalRural Resource Tourism (NRRT) InitiativeGroups has eroded some of the ruraluniqueness. In effect it is perceived thatLEADER+ could have embraced tourismgiving it a broader remit (than micro-business development), which would havenegated against the need for the NRRTIgroups. A second example is evident withinthe BSP MTE, which reflects that underPriority 4 of BSP it took longer on averageto process applications than under anyother Priority under BSP. This is attributedin part to the complexity of the Measure.

6.39 In the context of customer serviceprovided by DARD it is relevant to reflectbriefly on the recent Customer ServiceReview commissioned by DARD andcompleted by MORI Ireland and Deloitte inAugust 2004. This review highlightsvariability in terms of satisfaction levelsacross the various programmes andinitiatives. For instance, of those who havereceived funding from the RDP 2001–2006, half rated the programme as ‘good’or ‘very good’, while almost one in five

Figure 6.3: Views on the complicatednature of delivery arrangements

Clarifying roles and responsibilities isessential for the effective development ofpolicy and delivery of services and forholding policy makers and delivery bodies toaccount.

Currently if farmer lives in a boarder area,for example, South Armagh, he can accessfunds through LEADER+, INTERREG Measure1.4, Peace II, BSP, ESA and possiblyForestry.

One of our applicants, a farmer from CountyDown, was offered free or subsidisedcomputer training for his farm family from 4separate funding bodies.

The role of Government should be todevelop policy in consultation withstakeholders and to set a framework fordelivery. It should not engage in deliverydirectly itself.

The NIAO report called for rationalisation ofdelivery agents, this has not happenedThe delivery of the RDP has become veryrisk averse and this has limited the requiredlevel of innovation needed to move theregeneration process forward.

The EU funding has been complex andbureaucratic to administer and things needto be simplified to ensure commitment andspend alongside the required outputs andimpacts.

The current RDP has relied upon ‘singleproject type interventions’ where differentdelivery agents have targeted the customerbase of community, farm families, privatesector, women and youth separately. Therehas been a distinct lack of integrated actionbased on joined up action and an agreedstrategic approach.

There are still too many delivery agents, alack of rationale for who is delivering and aninsufficient segregation of functions such aspolicy, evidence, funding, audit managementand administration as well as monitoringand evaluation.

Increasing fragmentation of funds andfunding bodies has led to a ‘decrease inmotivation for rural development…and ruraldevelopment has lost it’s vibrancy…due tothe plethora of funds now available fromPeace, LEADER, ABSAGs, LSPs…’.

54


rated the programme as ‘poor’ or ‘verypoor’. Of those who rated it as poor, themain concerns revolved around issuesrelating to the efficiency of the applicationand payment processes.

6.40 By contrast, within this CustomerService Review 83% of participants withinthe ESA schemes rated them as either‘good’ or ‘very good’, with only 3% ratingthem as ‘poor’. This was slightly higherthan the 78% of customers of the CMSwho rated it either ‘good’ or ‘very good’with 8% rating the scheme as ‘poor’.These high levels of satisfaction arereflected in the ‘soundings’ conducted byPwC with the various environmentalinterests for this study. In the main theviews were largely positive about thedelivery of the various schemes andinitiatives (e.g. Agri-environment schemes:ESAs and CMS and OFS), which areperceived on the whole to be successful.This is evidenced by the fact the schemesare oversubscribed and are viewed asneeding more funds to bring aboutsignificant expansion. In outcome termsthe research suggests that most farmersnow farm in an environmentally sensitiveway and that organic farming is perceivedto be developing slowly. Overall take-up inthe ESAs is around 65% of all the eligibleland, and the CMS is fairly widely spreadelsewhere.

6.41 In reflecting on the differentiallevels of satisfaction above it is importantto highlight that there are key differencesbetween the processes within the RDP2001–2006 vis-à-vis the ESA and CMSschemes. The RDP 2001–2006 is muchmore of a competitive selection processwhich adds to the timing and turnaround ofapplications and clearly could impact onsatisfaction levels (in that some groupswould get turned down and therefore beless satisfied with the process).

6.42 Despite the successes detailedabove it is perceived that there are gaps incurrent funding programmes. For example,there are no environmental schemes innon-farm areas and insufficient marketingstrategies/ other indirect incentives to

encourage organic farming and locallyproduced food. Overall, it has beensuggested that the schemes are notmonitored effectively at present and thatDARD may have to make a fundamentalchange of direction in schemes. Inparticular, it is viewed that the goals andmeasures of ESAs and CMS are beingchallenged by cross-compliance. GoodAgricultural and Environmental Conditionrequirements for obtaining decoupledpayments in future seem likely to duplicatesome of the basic tier payment conditionsin ESAs/ CMS. This will mean that theseelements cease to be eligible for agri-environment payments in future.

6.43 The relationship between DARDand the RDC with respect to delivery/implementation of rural developmentinitiatives is also worth highlighting in thissub-section. The Review of the RDCconducted by PA Consulting in 20037

highlighted that the role of the RDC hadevolved and that it provided two coreservices in the area of rural development –funding assistance and an emerging policyrole. The report further highlighted thatstakeholders in the sector see the role ofthe RDC as a positive one and that its corestrength has been the focus it provided onthe development needs of ruralcommunities and its broad representativestatus. Overall it was a view that thesestrengths have positioned it as a keyplayer in the institutional landscape onrural development.

6.44 More specifically the PA Consultingreport highlighted that while delineation ofrespective roles (between DARD and theRDC) was clear it was not always logicaland mitigated against a more integratedapproach aimed at addressing the overallneeds of rural communities. Morespecifically the PA Consulting reporthighlighted that an underdeveloped ruraldevelopment policy framework and a highly

operational framework under the RDPstrategy defined the relationship betweenDARD and the RDC. This was felt to havetwo significant implications for therelationship between DARD and the RDC.The first of these was that DARD is activelyinvolved in project approval and reportingrequirements at an operational level. Thesecond of these was that in the absenceof a developed policy framework for ruraldevelopment the RDC has begun to shapea role in relation to ‘what it sees as policythrough a series of initiatives’. This,according to the PA Consulting Review, hadgiven rise to unclear and possibly divergingexpectations on the emerging policy role ofRDC and the fit of this role with DARD’spolicy function.

6.45 In concluding it was suggested inthe PA Consulting Review that, in light ofthe Vision report8, that DARD wasaddressing the issue with the developmentof a new organisational structure, whichdistinguished between policy and delivery.It was viewed that these structures hadthe potential to lead to a more structuredapproach to communication with newmechanisms in place to manage therelationship. Notwithstanding this theresearch input to this study has indicateda desire for even greater levels ofseparation between policy and delivery – ineffect that DARD should be driving aninformed and evidenced base approach torural policy within and across Government,but that delivery should be at arms length(i.e. external to central Government). It isalso held that this delivery should bebased on the concept of a ‘one-stop shop’i.e. an integrated model encompassing thedelivery of both agriculture and ruraldevelopment funding. These issues aremore fully explored within Section VIII.

6.46 One of the main recognisedsuccesses of rural development activity todate in NI has been the engagement andinvolvement of communities – many ofwho had hitherto felt excluded frommainstream Government support. This is

7 PA Consulting Group (2003) A Review of the Rural DevelopmentCouncil. Department of Agriculture and Rural Development,November 2003.

8 Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (2004) VisionAction Plan.

55


regarded as highly significant in terms ofboth social inclusion and peace building.While rural areas are often perceived toenjoy a strong internal social cohesionthey still suffer from the sectariandivisions that pervade within society as awhole in NI (although the outward impactsare often less explicit than in urban areas,where physical interfaces/ ‘peace walls’are evident) Indeed in the context of peacebuilding the work within the early stages ofthe RDP is viewed by many as contributingto the foundations of the early peace-building efforts in the 1990s.

6.47 In this context it is also relevant tohighlight the work of RCN and the RuralSupport Networks. The research with andbeyond RCN and the RSN suggests thatthe development of a healthy communityinfrastructure has been a key success ofrural development to date. Communitieshave been empowered through capacitybuilding and the infrastructure that hasresulted has facilitated and improved theimplementation of ‘top down’ measures forrural development and provided aframework within which Government canconsult. In addition through the processesinvolved there is an enhanced stock of‘social capital’ in rural areas which can actas an asset for social inclusion, localcitizenship and the development of a‘sense of place’. The ‘sense of place’ orenhanced identity of rural areas throughthis activity highlights the linkage betweenthe social and cultural dimension of ruralareas. In effect the implementation ofaspects of rural policy, through acommunity development approach isperceived to have enhanced the stock ofboth social and cultural capital in ruralareas of NI. Looking forward, given thescale of impending social change in ruralareas (e.g. through agri-restructuring,urban dispersal and changing patterns ofland use) it is widely perceived that thereare significant challenges ahead inmaintaining and developing a healthycommunity infrastructure. The importanceof the community development dimensionof rural development is well recognised ona broader basis within EU policy and withinthe recent DEFRA Strategy9.

6.48 Related to the above, is thesuccess achieved to date in NI in relationto a ‘bottom-up’ approach to ruraldevelopment. The principle, of a ‘bottom-up approach’ was endorsed at the 1996Cork Conference and more recently at theSalzburg Conference in 2003 (asdiscussed in Section II). This principle isbased on a view that rural developmentpolicy should respond effectively to localand regional needs, by involving a dialoguebetween rural stakeholders in the drawingup and subsequent implementation,monitoring and evaluation of programmes.The Salzburg Conference concluded that‘future policy must mainstream EU supportfor rural areas through bottom-up localpartnerships by building on the lessonslearned from the LEADER approach’. Thepotential for this is now in place with the‘Leaderisation’ of delivery within the newRural Development Regulation (as detailedin Section VIII).

6.49 The ‘bottom-up’ approach todevelopment in NI has been particularlysuccessful under LEADER as is evidentfrom the comments below (see Figure 6.4),drawing on the evaluation of LEADER II andcomments drawn from a Focus Group withthe LEADER Network for the purposes ofthis study. In particular the approach worksbest when rural communities are strong,diverse and fully representative10. Theresearch however indicates that LEADER+has been restrictive (due to the perceivednarrow focus on micro-business) which hasconstrained the extent to which ruralcommunities have been able to engage,take risks and be innovative.

6.50 One of the challenges of asuccessful ‘bottom-up’ approach is that itis reliant on ongoing local voluntary input.The NI Audit Office report11 highlighted thata major strength of the RDP has been theextent to which it has succeeded indeveloping rural community networks and

9 Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2004) RuralStrategy (London, HMSO)10 Shortall, S. and Shucksmith, M (2001) CommunityDevelopment Journal 2001 Vol 36, No. 2, pp 122–13411 NIAO (2000) Report on the Rural Development Programme1994–99

Figure 6.4: Views on the effectivenessof the bottom-up approach achievedthrough LEADER

LEADER was successful in giving decision-making rights back to the local communitiesand local areas.

Use of local and regional knowledge, localcommunity networks and grass rootsorganisations to facilitate the Programmedelivery (15 LAGs and 9 OCBs).

There was a big increase in local confidenceresulting from local participation andconsultations and a sense of independence‘on the ground’ from the availability of anaccessible local funding source.

Self-help is a key feature of LEADER andimportant to the future success of ruralareas.

The bottom-up approach boosted capacity,morale and relations within thosecommunities.

The approach opened up avenues for localparticipation and involvement both in theprogress and the project side….it resultedin more wider awareness of the programme[in comparison to LEADER I] and led toincreased engagement in rural developmentplanning.

Source: Ex-post evaluation of LEADER II and FocusGroups with LAGS

partnerships within rural areas throughvoluntary inputs. The estimated value ofvolunteering within the programme wassome £500k per year. However throughthe research for this study it is evident thatthere is also a degree of ‘fatigue’ in localcommunities with respect to voluntaryinput – linked to perceptions that the timeinputs of voluntary members of Boards arenot fully valued or appreciated.

6.51 It is recognised that othersuccesses from the implementation ofrural policy in Northern Ireland has beenthe use of the ‘area based’ approach todelivery. This has been achieved throughthe LEADER Local Action Groups and thePeace II Natural Rural Resource TourismInitiative (NRRTI) Partnerships which aregeographically based. Local area basedtype initiatives have been acknowledged by

56


independent evaluators as making a veryuseful contribution to the economic andsocial development of rural areas. Therural presence of the Area Based StrategyAction Groups was also central to successwith needs being identified locally. Inaddition, the sectoral based approach hasbeen a successful tool for addressingsocial and economic problems in ruralareas. In particular the LEADER IIprogramme funded Other CollectiveBodies, which developed and implementedsectorally based projects (for example,beekeeping and rural cottages).

6.52 The final point that is worthhighlighting on the perceived effectivenessof the implementation of rural developmentinitiatives, relates to the view that DARD(Rural Development Division) exhibit a riskaverse culture, which has contributed to aperceived lack of innovation within someof the initiatives. This is attributed to theissues raised within the NIAO report butthere is a general sense of frustration thatthis culture limits the levels of innovationrequired to move the rural regenerationprocess forward. That said, DARD willcontinue to require robust economicappraisals before proceeding on anyprojects (i.e. there are no short-cuts in thisprocess). Furthermore the level of auditrequired, at low levels, is perceived to be ablockage to community efforts andvoluntary engagement. Coupled with thisare the constraints surrounding N+2. Inparticular it should be recognised that N+2regulations were developed after the RuralDevelopment Programme had beendevised. As such the implications of N+2are that there is an increased pressure tospend and meet timescales, which werenot agreed at the outset of the overallProgramme. The introduction of N+2brought with it related constraints for theimplementation of rural developmentactivity, which included:

• Constraints to bottom-upapproach; the N+2 rule putpressure on local communities interms of the amount of timeavailable for groups to prepareproject applications with the ‘pushon spend’;

• Supply chasing demand rathervice versa; implementing bodieswere chasing ‘projects’ rather thanprojects chasing money; and

• Extensive consultation by DARDon N+2; unforeseen consultationshad to be held by DARD to considerhow to manage and adhere to N+2in terms of the Rural DevelopmentProgramme, which added to thetime delays’.

6.53 Overall these issues contribute tothe perceived culture of ‘bureaucracy’within DARD.

6.54 The requirements placed on DARDin terms of audit and accountability to DFPand the Public Accounts Committee arewidely acknowledged, however a keymessage moving forward is that aminimum level of bureaucracy should beplaced at a local level – in that there is arisk that farmers and local communitieswill ‘just give up’ in terms of participationin the various initiatives. From the farmingperspective the key issue highlightedthrough the research is that many farmersare over 55 in age and left school aged14–15, and therefore have in many caseslimited capacity to deal with all the ‘redtape’. Nonetheless, from an accountabilitypoint of view, it is important that theeconomic appraisals are conducted beforedecisions on grants are made. From theperspective of local communities thebureaucracy is perceived to be a drain onthe voluntary input of Board members,which ultimately again may encouragethem to disengage from the process. Forthe future a key issue highlighted is thatthe definition of risk should be revisitedas part of a process of tackling the‘institutional inertia’ within DARD. Thispoint is explored further in Section VIII asone of a number of ‘key principles’ thatneeds to be embodied within a future ruralpolicy for NI.

Conclusions6.55 The activity and outputs arisingfrom rural development initiatives indicatein broad terms that the 1994–99programming period was successful inachieving the anticipated levels ofactivity and outputs, although much of itwas ‘back-end’ loaded within the period. Inaddition considerable progress was madenot just in terms of initial ‘animation’ andcapacity building in rural areas, but interms of job creation even though the RDP1994–99 was not exclusively a jobcreation programme. Within the currentprogramming period (2000–2006) one ofthe main messages emanating from thevarious evaluations is of initial slowness toachieve real momentum in terms of bothapprovals and expenditure. However,recent monitoring data, gathered after theevaluations were published shows thatprogramme targets are now broadly beingmet.

6.56 Drawing on the more qualitativeviews, gathered through the researchprocess, it is evident that theeffectiveness of policy/ strategy andprogramming approach to ruraldevelopment has had limitations. In broadterms the research suggests that ‘groundhas been lost’ in policy formulation termssince the early days of rural developmentactivity and indeed the main perception isthat NI, in recent years, has not had arural policy per se, rather a policy ofdelivery within the bounds of DARD’s RuralDevelopment Programme, with activitybeing almost entirely funding led (linkedpredominantly to EU monies), rather thandemand led. Overall there is perceived tobe a clear lack of an evidence basedpolicy and strategic integration acrossGovernment in NI, with respect to ruralissues. Linked to this there is an evidentlevel of disappointment with theapplication of Rural Proofing and the extentto which it has been able to effectivelyinfluence decision-making. To a degree thelack of a clear rural policy is attributed to‘muddled thinking’ emanating fromBrussels, which a single EU fund for RuralDevelopment has the potential to address.Overall a broader rural policy approach for

57


NI, including links to the regional policyframework, is viewed as a priority for thefuture.

6.57 The views on the effectiveness ofthe delivery and implementation of ruraldevelopment policy thus far, are bothpositive and negative. In a positive senseit is recognised that significant gains havebeen made in building a healthycommunity infrastructure and achieving a‘bottom-up’ approach to ruraldevelopment. On the negative side themain messages are about the ‘overlycomplicated delivery structure’ creatingconfusion for customers and perceivedinefficiencies at an overall level (throughthe disparate arrangements foradministering the wide range of schemesand initiatives). Clarity and greater levelsof separation between policy and delivery(i.e. where policy remains within centralGovernment but delivery is external to it) isviewed as desirable for the future. Theother main negative issue highlighted withrespect to the effectiveness of delivery/implementation centres on a perceivedlack of innovation and risk averse culturewithin DARD, which is perceived to beconstraining both the pace and quality ofrural regeneration efforts.

58


7 Learning from elsewhere

Introduction7.1 This section looks at lessonslearned from elsewhere in terms of:

• Environmental capital as a driverfor rural development;

• Social capital as a driver for ruraldevelopment;

• Partnership working in ruraldevelopment;

• Bridging farming and non-farmingsectors in rural economies;

• Supporting successful farmadaptation;

• Analysis of Rural White Papers inthe Republic of Ireland and otherregions in the UK;

• Fit of ‘agriculture’ and ‘ruraldevelopment’ in Departments inother UK regions; and

• The New Zealand experience.

Environmental capital as adriver of rural development

Introduction7.2 It is now regarded as normalpractice for rural development policy toinclude specific reference to the localenvironment. However, this can takevarious forms:

• The first sees the environment asa constraint that has to berespected – a constraint on the‘real’ business of developing theeconomy, creating jobs anddelivering the services andfacilities that local people want andneed; and

• The second sees the environmentas a resource of ‘public goods’that can positively help theattainment of economic and socialgoals and be sustained if carefullymanaged.

7.3 In moving forward it is theenvironment as a resource which isfundamental. A conception that sees theenvironment/ development relationship notin terms of seeking ‘balance’ but rather interms of creating a positive upward spiral.There are at least five aspects in whichthe local environment can contribute to

that spiral of development and all needcarefully planning and managing if long-term success is to be assured. Theseaspects are outlined in the followingparagraphs.

(1) Environment’s capacity toattract visitors7.4 The first, and most obvious, is theenvironment’s capacity to attract visitorsand tourists whose expenditure will createor retain jobs and provide multiplier effectsworking through the local economy. The2001 foot and mouth epidemic whichresulted in the countryside beingeffectively ‘closed down’ for severalmonths brought home the reality that morejobs in rural England in particular, are inthe tourism sector than in agriculture. Oneestimate is that there are 25,000 ruraltourism businesses and 380,000 ‘direct orindirect’ tourism jobs1. This was also trueto a lesser extent in the case of Foot andMouth on the island of Ireland. Ruraltourism is estimated to grow significantlyas ‘short breaks’ become more popularand a type of tourism, that values ‘doing’and ‘experiencing’ more than passiverelaxing, grows in popularity2. Indeed, aspreviously discussed, this is anopportunity currently being pursued by theNITB in their Strategic Framework thatidentifies three projects in rural areasbased around on the natural environmentor built heritage.

(2) Environment’s record inattracting migrants7.5 Second is the environment’s recordin attracting migrants as part of the‘counter-urbanisation’ process whichshows no sign of abating in WesternEurope. Indeed it is being fuelled by therapid adoption of ICT at household levelwith all that that means for allowing manypeople to ‘telework’ and, thus liberated

geographically, live more or less wherethey choose. In that regard those who canafford to do so are increasingly choosing amore congenial place in the countryside.

7.6 One crucial component of this isthe attraction of potential entrepreneurs –‘potential’ because many in fact move intorural areas initially for ‘quality of life’reasons before they decide to consider thelaunch of any new business. Thus theenvironment attracts the person, not thebusiness, but the person decides to stayand launch his/ her business at or nearthe adopted home – a phenomenon firstrecorded by Keeble3 and his colleaguesand confirmed many times since.

7.7 Not that ‘potential entrepreneurs’comprise the only significant migrantstream attracted by environmental quality.Obviously commuters to the surroundingtowns and cities are another, includingincreasingly what may be called ‘semi-commuters’ who spend part of the weekworking from home and part of it in theoffice. Although more research needs tobe conducted on where commutersactually exercise their spending, this is anarea of possible future potentialdevelopment that renders all of ruralNorthern Ireland as a ‘commuter country’in due course.

7.8 Also significant is the in-migrationof retired people – with commuters andretirees each bringing relatively substantialflows of money into rural areas andgenerating the potential for a number ofjobs in a range of service industries. Thusboth commuting and retirement can andshould be seen as valuable ‘basicindustries’ bringing money into rural areasjust as much as, say, the sale ofagricultural produce or of manufacturedgoods and with potentially as positiveeffects on the local economy. It is oftenthe environment that attracts these

1 Countryside Agency (2002) ‘The State of the Countryside 2002’2 See the growing ‘rural futures’ literature such as M Moynaghand R Worsley (2003) ‘The State of the Countryside 2020’ – areport to the Countryside Agency; and the as yet unpublished workfor Defra by the ‘Rural Futures’ project team (The FuturesFoundation and University of Newcastle upon Tyne)

3 Keeble D E et al (1992) Business Success in the Countryside;the Performance of the Rural Economy – a repor t to the Dept ofEnvironment, London

59


commuters and migrants – especially themore affluent ones who have a greaterlevel of disposable income.

7.9 In addition to the above, in thecase of Northern Ireland and elsewheremigrant labour has been attracted to takeup employment opportunities in theagricultural, food, tourism and associatedservices sector. This is an importantelement associated with the removal ofbarriers to labour mobility. It represents afurther opportunity for all areas, includingrural areas in Northern Ireland.

(3) Impact of environment increating jobs and supportingeconomic activity7.10 Then there are the jobs and knock-on economic activity created or sustainedin ‘the environment sector’ itself – in theproduction, conservation and marketing ofenvironmental goods and services. Theseinclude jobs and turnover generated in themanagement and restoration of thelandscape and built environment, in craftbusinesses based on local raw materials,and in the interpretation of the local areafor visitors of various kinds and theoperation of gift shops, restaurants/cafes, education/ activity or informationcentres, at sites that are managed andpromoted for environmental purposes. Thescale of this kind of contribution to ruraleconomies can be significant: for example,in the South West of England a study in1999 estimated that the National Trust’sactivities in this arena generated 10,913full-time equivalent jobs and represented£123m of additional spend within theregion. In turn, for every one job generateddirectly by Trust expenditure on wages,this was estimated to generate anadditional 3.3 jobs elsewhere in theregion4. Similarly, a PwC report whichexamined the economic impact of theNational Trust in Northern Ireland foundthat the Trust had a turnover of just under£7.4m in 2002, drew 60% of its income

(just over £4.5m) from outside NorthernIreland and after including multipliereffects, spent between £4.9m and £6.3mannually5.

(4) Branding environmental orheritage features7.11 A further way of deriving economicbenefit from a local environment involvesproclaiming the identity and quality of anarea. Development agencies serving areaswith some clearly defining environmentalor heritage feature increasingly use it for‘branding’ and hence for raising popularawareness of the area, and moreimportantly of its products. Not only doesthat often generate more sales of localservices and commodities but it canpermit a ‘mark-up’ that people will pay toacquire what is at least perceived to be asuperior, or at least distinctive, product.

Thus the quality and distinctiveness of thelocal environment underpins an image andthe image generates a good feeling andstronger consumer interest.

7.12 A recent study6 of the uneveneconomic development across ruralEngland found at least two labels playingthat role in case study districts – the word‘Cotswolds’ evoking a mellow image ofhoney-coloured stone walls and buildingsand idyllic, rolling, sheep-covered hills, and‘Hadrian’s Wall’ a more rugged landscapeand a direct link with our Romanantecedents. Both words, ‘Cotswold’ and‘Hadrian’, recur not just in the publicityliterature of those parts of Gloucestershireand Northumberland respectively, but inthe names of a very diverse set of localbusinesses which each stand to benefit alittle from the success of the others. This

Text Box 1: Environment’s capacity to attract visitors – English Case Study(Tyneside, Northumberland)

An English example of local development founded substantially on the attractiveness of thelocal environment for potential entrepreneurs is provided by the district of Tynedale inNorthumberland which is being transformed in a way that depends heavily on the quality of itsnatural and built environment.Many professional, managerial and technical employees of Tyneside firms have moved out ofthe conurbation attracted by the landscape and the quality of cultural life there. At first theseworkers have commuted to the city on a daily basis, but in due course some have set up ontheir own. Today the area has twice as many small businesses per head than the nationalaverage, many of them ‘knowledge intensive’. In addition there are firms that have relocatedfrom the conurbation or from further afield to capitalise on environment-related opportunities.

Text Box 2: Environment as resource for supporting economic activity – GermanCase Study (Rhon Biosphere Reserve)

A German example of an area which has invested successfully in businesses that dependupon the high quality of the natural environment can be found in the Rhön Biosphere Reservewhich is protected as a biosphere reserve under the UNESCO designation. The focus ofeconomic development activity over the past 30 years has been centred around making themost of these assets in the characterisation and development of local food products andoutlets, sustainable tourism, and environmental education and interpretation services.Successful and well-established rural business activities within the Biosphere area include theproduction and sale of local produce both to individual customers and via local restaurantsand festivals. In addition, hiking, cross country and downhill skiing, horse riding, paraglidingand mountain biking are important leisure and tourist activities offered or supported by localbusinesses in the reserve.

4 Tourism Associates (1999) Valuing our Environment – a study ofthe economic impact of conserved landscapes and of the NationalTrust in the South West 1998. National Trust, Exeter

5 PricewaterhouseCoopers (2004) Valuing Our Environment: TheEconomic Impact of the National Trust in Northern Ireland. Reportprepared for the National Trust, March 2004

6 ‘The Determinants of Rural Economic Development’ by theUniversities of Plymouth and Gloucestershire, for Defra – as yetunpublished

60


approach can be exploited through thedevelopment of national parks and is anelement contained within the proposals fora National Park in the Mourne Mountains.

(5) Building social and culturalcapital7.13 Finally, building social and culturalcapital is examined. It is increasingly clearthat conserving and enhancing a particularlocal environment, especially if it isundertaken as a partnership venture fullyinvolving local communities andstakeholders, can have beneficial effectsupon the attitudes of the local populationand thereby on economic development. Inpart this involves reinforcing a sense ofplace and pride of place; ‘this is my placeand I’m proud of it; it’s got a past and I’mgoing to help make sure it’s got a future!’Thus by fully involving local people inappreciating and enhancing ‘their place’and in addressing the challenges andopportunities that their environment andheritage offers for the future, social capitalcan be created and enhanced.Organisations and networks are formed,local leaders arise, and mutual trust andconfidence are nurtured in ways that thatwill themselves help the economicdevelopment process. Northern Irelandhas an established track record in thisregard through various organisations suchas the RCN and the Rural Network, thefarming bodies, the NRRT Partnerships,the LEADER groups and various others.

7.14 With a view to learning from theexperiences from elsewhere, two casestudies have been selected to show howthe environment can be a real resourcefor economic development. The casestudies represent lessons which couldapply to rural Northern Ireland fromEngland and Germany. The case studiesare briefly outlined in the text boxes andexamined in more detail in Appendix G.

Conclusions on environment asa driver for rural development7.15 Several practical conclusions flowfrom the recognition of the potentialmutual reinforcement of environmentalconservation and local economic

development in rural areas. They include:• Investment in the ‘natural’ and

built rural environment can feeddirectly into economic and socialregeneration in a variety of ways;

• Local people need to be fullyinvolved in – not just consulted on– plans and actions forenvironmental enhancement andthe ‘valorisation’ of the goods andservices that this can provide;

• Tools need to be developed toenable ‘local environmentalappraisal’ to identify what needs tobe done and how to enhance theenvironment with the economy inmind;

• Farming is central to the businessof landscape management and theproduction of environmental goodsand services. Farmers can beencouraged to work with other localactors to recognise and capitaliseon this in their businessdevelopment;

• Land-use planning should beconceived as the facilitation andmanagement of a positive spiral ofsustainable development, and notjust as a way of achieving ‘balance’between development andconservation; and

• Conserving and enhancingenvironmental quality will not, ofitself, secure environmentally-based economic development.‘Enabling investment’, for examplein broadband and other informationinfrastructure and in human andsocial capital, is also needed tofacilitate these new areas ofgrowth and development, as is asympathetic and ‘go-ahead’political and funding culture.

Social capital as a driver forrural development7.16 There has been increasingrecognition in recent years that local

development derives in large measurefrom the effective and efficient exploitationof the various ‘capitals’ that comprise anarea’s resource base. This sub-sectionhowever, focuses on social capital7

because the quality and quantity of‘networks, organisations, norms and trust’are increasingly seen to be crucial tosustainable rural development, and alsobecause Government is rightly concernedthat such capital is unevenly distributedacross rural areas, is susceptible toinadvertent erosion, and needs to bebolstered.

7.17 Another important concept in thiscontext is ‘capacity building’ meaning, inthis context, deliberately building thecapacity of local communities to play apro-active and useful role in shaping theirown future. This ‘capacity building’generally relates to the enhancement bothof individuals (human capital) and of the‘glue’ that holds them together (socialcapital). A key question for government ishow to engage in capacity building in acost-effective manner – i.e. in a mannerthat promises to increase a localcommunity’s capacity to ‘deliver thegoods.’

7.18 In this context, it is important toconsider briefly the challenge ofenhancing or creating social capital inspecific areas or contexts – in effect‘capacity building’. Drawing on Chanan, etal Blackburn et al8 they suggest six broadareas of work in this regard. These areasof work relate to social capital at the localcommunity level rather than at either theindividual person level (e.g. helpingunemployed young people or mothers athome to build up their support networks)or at the national level e.g. expandingcitizen education at school or introducinglegislation to allow workers to work flexiblyand thereby take time out for communityactivities or farm related activities.

7 A useful distinction between ‘human’ and ‘social’ capital is thatthe former relates to individual people as a resource – even if theyare considered in aggregate – while the latter relates to the ‘glue’that holds individuals together8 Blackburn et all (2003) Rural Communities and the VoluntarySector, Research Report to Vetra. Chanan G et all (1999)

61


7.19 At the local level, suggestedcapacity-building initiatives include thefollowing:

• Spreading a culture of activecitizenship in the locality, by raisingexpectations and understanding ofthe kind of activity open to localpeople;

• Creating the right physicalconditions – for example, helpingpeople to feel secure movingaround in various areas orproviding adequate meeting placesand the means of getting to them;

• Strengthening and extendingexisting groups – for example, byorganisational training anddevelopment;

• Starting new groups – perhapsinvolving hitherto excluded orinexperienced people or those withspecial needs;

• Awarding small financial grants forlocally generated projects whosesuccessful management is likely tocreate social capital as a ‘by-product’; and

• Building up the infrastructure of thewider community sector – focusingon ‘umbrella bodies’ and networkswhich support local groups byrepresenting them to outsidebodies and by helping them to co-operate with each other.

7.20 As implied above it takes time todetermine how far such initiatives aresuccessful in terms of building social (orhuman) capital rather than theachievement of tangible outputs such forexample, as the number of car shareschemes started or community based careschemes operated.

7.21 To examine how social capital canact as a driver for rural development, twocase study examples have been selectedfrom outside Northern Ireland. They arebased on the Shropshire Rural Challenge

and an educational programme being runby the University of Gloucestershire andare summarised in the text boxes. Moredetailed analysis of the case studies is setout in Appendix G.

7.22 When examining experiences fromelsewhere it is also important to reflect onthe research funded by the Carnegie Trustwhich assessed rural communitydevelopment case studies in ten countriesincluding Austria, Finland, Germany,Greece, Hungary, Norway, Poland,Romania, Spain and Sweden9. Acrossthese studies a number of commonpractical issues for rural communitydevelopment were identified:

• It [rural community development] ismarginal to mainstream fundingprogrammes;

• There is only short-term funding foressentially long-term processes;

• Tokenism best describes most

attempts at communityinvolvement;

• There is a lack of attention tosocial inclusion and powerrelations;

• Lines of accountability andlegitimacy are often confused andthere is characteristically a poorrelationship to existing structures;

• There is a lack of training for bothvolunteers, professionals andpartners;

• Support needs for programmesand staff are frequentlyunacknowledged; and

• LEADER is seen as the pre-eminentmodel influencing national policies.

7.23 However, with a view to addressingthe common problems in rural communitydevelopment and advancing the locallyarea-based approach, Robert et al(2001)10, in their report for DG Regio,suggest the following:

Text Box 3: Social capital as a driver for rural development – case study(Shropshire Rural Challenge)

The South-West Shropshire ‘Rural Challenge’ partnership (1995 to 1999) demonstrates thesocial capital spin-off that can come about as a by-product of funding a local programme ofsmall projects. In essence, in the late 1990s England’s Rural Development Commissionawarded a few substantial prizes of £1m over three years to a select group of small townswhich could demonstrate local need, a portfolio of projects to address that need, a promisinglocal partnership and pledges of substantial matching finance.When the initiative was evaluated in 1999 as part of a transnational study of localdevelopment partnerships, it was clear that a legacy of social capital had been created. In anarea of just 10,000 people, a partnership of 18 local organisations – public, private andvoluntary - had come together and stayed together to manage the programme, a not-for-profit-company had flourished delivering individual projects and, most innovatively, several smallsemi-formal groups of local people had been established to perform specific tasks.

Text Box 4: Social capital as a driver for rural development(National Education Programme led by University of Gloucestershire)

A national educational programme for parish clerks and councillors is currently being run byUniversity of Gloucestershire. By 2003, over 1,000 local clerks had achieved a universityqualification in ‘Local Policy’. It can be demonstrated that the training programme hasenhanced:• Human capital – the 1,000 ‘rural activists’ enrolling as students; and• Social capital – linking them together as an ‘interest community’ spread across the wholecountry and the ability of the individual parish councils, and the local organisations (withwhich they have dealings) to act as valuable parish-specific embodiments of social capital.

9 For a detailed discussion of the case studies see Craig, GShucksmith, M. and Young-Smith, L. (2004) Rural CommunityDevelopment in Europe

10 Robert, J. et al. (2001) Spatial Impacts of Community Policiesand Costs of Non-Coordination, repor t to DG Regio. Also see OECD(1998) Best Practices in Local Development, Paris: Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development

62


• Institutional readjustments atCommunity, national and regionallevels to allow the establishment ofa correct balance between thevarious administrative levelsassociated with the sectoral andterritorial policies affecting ruralareas;

• Greater flexibility of operationalprogrammes and Communityinitiatives, and even certainaspects of the CAP, to takeaccount of the differentiatedcountryside, notably in the mostfragile rural areas;

• Input into strategic objectives andvisioning from local communitieswhich ‘are the actors of anydevelopment strategy, therecipients of policies or ofprogrammes’; and

• Partnership arrangements, at theoperational level, which provide themechanisms to guarantee aninstitutional framework forintegration, both vertically andhorizontally, ‘centred more onterritorial than sectoral aspects’.

Partnership working in ruraldevelopment7.24 In the quest for sustainable ruraldevelopment in Europe over the past 10 to15 years no themes have been cultivatedwith greater enthusiasm than ‘partnershipworking’ and ‘community involvement’.However, these desiderata do notautomatically deliver the goods and therehave been disappointments. With that inmind, recent research has sought toestablish just how best to ensure thatlocal or territorial partnerships which bringtogether a host of stakeholders with acommitment to particular geographicalareas, and ‘bottom-up planning’ whichseeks to distil and build upon the ideasand energies of ‘ordinary people’ at themost local level, can deliver the desiredoutcomes.

Local partnerships7.25 In broad terms, a partnership is‘an arrangement which deliberately drawstogether the resources of specifiedpartners in order to create a capacity toact with regard to a defined objective orset of objectives’11. Over the last fifteenyears or so partnerships have becomingincreasing pervasive in rural developmentpolicy but the main question still remainsis whether these territorial partnershipsreally add value to the developmentprocess in ways that similarly resourcedindividual agencies – such as the localauthorities or local economic developmentagencies – would find difficult orimpossible? And if so, what are the crucialingredients that make the difference? Astudy of some 330 rural developmentpartnerships which had come into being inthe 1990s in eight member states of theEU (including the UK and Ireland) set outto answer those two questions12.

7.26 A survey of the 54 UK partnershipswithin that sample of 330 (seven of themin Northern Ireland) revealed that mostrespondents thought that there was indeedsome ‘partnership value-added’ andattributed this to five main factors. Firstwas the availability of adequate fundingand their ability as partnerships to lever inmore funds. Then came the active supportof the relevant local authority/ies and ofthe funding partners; the active support ofthe local community as a source of localknowledge and energy; a good co-operativespirit amongst the partners; and theavailability of high-quality staff andindividual board members prepared to takeup certain issues or areas of work.

7.27 The main outcomes that weregenuinely attributable to partnershipworking were effectiveness in achievingobjectives, endogenous development,capacity building, integrated developmentin which projects were synergistically

linked, and community involvement. As forwhat really generated those outcomes,from a list of 33 possible causal factors,the main factors were the competence andcommitment of partnership staff, thesuccessful mobilisation of localknowledge, and decision-making beingexercised at the local level. Also significantwere the ‘sectoral mix’ of thepartnerships, the involvement in them ofone or more key actors with leadershipskills and the networking activities of thepartnerships.

7.28 The main conclusion of thisresearch, was that local partnerships canand often do add value to the developmentprocess but this does not happenautomatically. Those who set up andsupport local partnerships, and thoseinvolved in them, have to ensure that anumber of things are put in place andremain firmly in place over time. Mostnotably these include:

• Diversity and commitment – both ofpartner organisations and of theindividual people representingthem;

• A shared vision and sense ofpurpose, reflecting local needs andresources;

• A clear and coherent strategy toguide the partnership’s work, builton local knowledge and respectingthe strategies of other relevantactors;

• Clear ‘rules of engagement’ settingout the mutual expectations andcontributions of the partners;

• Strong but not over-dominantleadership;

• Decision-making firmly at the locallevel;

• Secure, flexible and sufficientlydevolved funding;

• The strong involvement of localgroups and individuals with localknowledge;

• Competent and committed staff,with the appropriate skills tosupport a local partnership and topromote local development;

• Good links/ networking with otherrelevant agencies and the wider

11 Edwards, W. et al (2000) Partnership Working in RuralRegeneration. Bristol, the Policy Press and Joseph RowntreeFoundation12 Moseley, M. J. (ed) 2003 Local Partnerships for Ruraldevelopment; the European Experience. Wallingford, CABI

63


community; and• An atmosphere of mutual trust.

7.29 This list provides a research-validated agenda for effective localpartnership working, and forms the focusof a good practice guide,13 not least withinthe context of rural development policy.

Bridging ‘bottom-up and top-down’7.30 In addition to horizontal or‘territorial’ partnerships which bringtogether agencies and actors sharing acommon interest in the fortunes of specificgeographical areas, usually at anintermediate scale between the nationaland the truly local, also important isfacilitating good vertical links betweenplanning at the intermediate level and thatwhich is becoming increasinglycommonplace at the level of the village,small town or locality level.

7.31 A further piece of research14,sponsored by the Countryside Agency inEngland, has looked at the scope forbetter links between at the very local level,‘parish plans’ and ‘market town actionplans’ and, higher up, the ‘communitystrategies’ being produced by overarching‘Local Strategic Partnerships’ (LSPs).These planning exercises, both seeking totake a holistic view of the needs andopportunities of local areas to which theyrelate, have developed in virtual isolationof each other.

7.32 By early 2004, about 900 parishesand about 200 market towns hadproduced or were producing such localplans of action. The parish plans can anddo cover any and everything considered tobe of local importance – economicdevelopment, affordable housing, land-useplanning matters, transport, crimereduction, local amenities and so on.

There is no blueprint for them and theirremit is wholly discretionary though theymust be demonstrably based oncommunity concerns and aspirations ifthey are to obtain modest financial supportto defray the cost of their production.Typically these parish and town planscomprise a mixture of ‘Do it Yourselfprojects’ which require little or no externalsupport, and projects which can only goahead if one or more ‘higher up’ agenciesadopt them as their own policies andpriorities.

7.33 The Community Strategies,however, whilst also embracing the idealsof ‘holistic perspective’ and, in principlelocal opinion, differ in applying to muchlarger geographical areas and beingrequired by law. As mentioned above, theyare produced by ‘LSPs’ with the aim15 of:

• Responding to the concerns oflocal communities;

• Improving the co-ordination ofservices delivered by manydifferent bodies;

• Delivering those services in waysthat suit the people who depend onthem; and

• Taking into account of the needs offuture generations.

7.34 Potentially, each of theseinnovative broad-ranging planningexercises, stands to benefit from closeliaison with the other; the ‘very local’ plansto increase their chances of beingappropriate and therefore implemented;the area-wide community strategies byhaving access to local opinion and therebygreater legitimacy.

7.35 But research in five parts of ruralEngland that display rather differentconfigurations of these two planningventures, found that the ‘vertical bridges’between them were either non-existent orvery rudimentary in character. Indeed atthe ‘higher’ level there was a good deal of

suspicion of informal very local planswhich are often felt to be poorly based onresearch and in effect charters for ‘specialpleading’ which sits uneasily within anysort of strategic overview of priorities. Atthe ‘lower level’ there was oftenincomprehension about these higher-levelplans and some resentment that thecarefully worked up parish plan proposalswere not simply accepted and championedad hoc.

7.36 Faced with what was effectively a‘stand off’ situation, the action-researchteam devised and helped to pilot overseveral months various practical initiativesor ‘vertical bridging’ machinery. The detailsare set out in a Good Practice Guide16 andinclude developing locally written ‘Guidesto Bridging’ which include information onthe context within which the variousparties were working, a protocol settingout the practical arrangements for linkingthe two types of planning exercise (e.g.‘the LSP contact person is Ms X, thetimetable of LSP meetings is such-and-such) and a template to be used forassessing the degree of congruencebetween the Community Strategies’proposals and those emerging in parish ormarket town plans. Proposals were alsomade concerning the kind of ‘capacitybuilding’ that was needed at both levels ifthe two exercises were to gel and to addvalue to each other. These approaches togood practice are potentially very relevantto the development of local ruraldevelopment policy in the context of locallybased area plans and overarching LocalAuthority and Regional Development Plans.

Conclusions on partnershipworking7.37 Both research projects – onpartnerships and on bridging top-down andbottom-up planning – revealed the value of,and practicability of, carefully intermeshingthe work of essentially disparate actors.

13 Countryside and Community Research Unit (2001) RuralDevelopment Partnerships; Guidelines for Good Practice in the UK.CCRU, University of Gloucestershire (copies available free ofcharge from [email protected])14 Countryside and Community Research Unit (2004) The BridgesResearch Project; Parish Plans, Market Town Action Plans– links toLocal Strategic Partnerships and Community Strategies. Universityof Gloucestershire for the Countryside Agency. ( details [email protected])

15 DETR (2000) Preparing Community Strategies; GovernmentGuidance to Local Authorities

16 Countryside Agency (2004) Bridging the Gap Between Parishand Market Town Action Plans and LSPs/Community Strategies –a Good Practice Guide (details [email protected])

64


This needs clear thinking, patient work andpolitical awareness. It does not justhappen. But the potential is real. In thecontext of rural policy, rural developmentrequires the enthusiastic commitment bothof local communities and of a range ofagencies whose decisions impact uponthem. The message is that real valueadded, a positive spiral of local ruraldevelopment, can be achieved if thevarious parties work together rather thanremain at odds with each other.

Bridging farming and non-farm sectors in ruraleconomies

Introduction7.38 Farming in Northern Ireland facesthe prospect of an increasingly competitivetrading environment. At the same time, thepublic interest in rural areas across the UKand Ireland has shifted strongly towards adesire to see and enjoy well-managedlandscapes, and vibrant and diverse ruraleconomies and communities supporting arange of business and cultural activities.

7.39 With the reform of the CAP, set to‘free up’ farmers’ production choices overthe next few years via the introduction ofthe Single Farm Payment, there is newscope for farming to set itself on a ratherdifferent course from the past. Lookingahead, there are growing opportunities forfarmers throughout the UK and Ireland tocompete successfully in markets not onthe basis of low-cost commodityproduction, but rather by building effectivelinks with other actors in the rural economyto produce and promote high quality and/or value-added outputs that can benefitfarm and non-farm rural businesses,building on the unique natural and culturalassets of each local area.

The need for new approaches7.40 Across Europe, there has been agrowing realisation that the future of ruralareas can no longer be dependent uponagriculture alone and particularly, if thatagriculture has become capitalised:employing relatively few people, andspecialised into one or two outputs so that

whole regions lose their small-scalediversity of landscapes and farmingcommunities. If we wish to preserve thesocial, cultural and environmental diversityof Europe’s rural areas it is necessary tostimulate a more diverse and territoriallysensitive range of economic activities infuture. To this end, public and privatefunds have increasingly been directedtowards promoting sustainable andintegrated rural development in many partsof the European Union. Throughout the1990s these policies were largelysupported by EU Structural Funds and theLEADER Community Initiative (LEADER Iand II), however, since 2000, an increasingrole has been played by the Second Pillarof the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)and this seems likely to be the source of

most EU rural support in the future.

7.41 In the Northern Ireland and the UK,in general, much ‘rural development’activity to date has been focused uponcommunity activities and small-scale ruralbusinesses, but not really embracingfarmers and farm businesses. This isconfirmed through the soundings exercisefor this review study.

7.42 In other parts of the EU, stepshave been taken to identify new economicstrategies in rural areas which can rebuildor strengthen the traditional links betweensmall farm and non-farm rural economicactors, recognising that this can provide amore robust way to future sustainability ineconomic, social and environmental terms.

Text Box 6: Germany – a LEADER-style approach to farming competitiveness:Regionen Aktiv

The Regionen Aktiv (RA) initiative was set up to encourage farm and non-farm interests inGermany’s rural areas to promote the goals of more sustainable farming and food productionwhich protects and enhances the environment, and contributes positively to local economicviability and quality of life.

Within each RA area, partnership networks have been formed between businesses, localmunicipalities, experts/academics/advisors and community or voluntary groups. Thepartnerships have developed new ideas and perspectives for the region’s future by bringingtogether the interests of consumers, producers, retailers and the environment to pursuemutual benefit while also seeking to re-create local identities and strengthening the area’seconomic and social viability.

While the process of the RA initiative might seem similar to many other rural developmentprojects currently active within Northern Ireland and Europe, the focus upon farming andconsumer protection is what makes it particularly distinctive. This has enabled RA to attractfarmers into closer working relationships with other local businesspeople, to mutual benefitand the benefit of the local area as a whole. As one farmer put it ‘it makes you look above theparapet, broadens your horizons and gives you a different range of options for the future.

Text Box 5: England – Rural Regeneration Unit: Cumbria Food Co-operatives

The Rural Regeneration Unit is a small non-profit organisation that was formed by leadingmembers of the Countryside Alliance in England in response to a strong feeling that localdirect action was urgently needed to help strengthen the links between urban and countrypeople across England. The RRU has been instrumental in stimulating a wide range of localactivity with the aim of meeting needs among farming and non-farming communities in directand cost-effective ways.

One of the RRU’s most successful initiatives to date has been the promotion andestablishment of a whole network of local food co-operatives in Cumbria, working among someof the most economically deprived urban communities in the country. With RRU’s help,community groups have developed contacts with local farmers and growers who have beenwilling to modify their production in order to produce a range of fresh fruit, vegetables andmeat for sale direct to these communities acting as food co-ops, bypassing any kind of‘middleman’ and dealing direct with customers.

65


But this requires new ways of thinking, andworking across the sectoral boundariesthat have become such an establishedfeature of post-war policy and practice inrural areas.

Key ingredients for a moresustainable strategy7.43 EU rural development experience,as analysed in recent research17 can bedrawn and distilled into a number of keyingredients that help to determine thesuccess of multi-sectoral economicgrowth, involving both farming and non-farming sectors. These points are set outbelow and detailed in Appendix G:

• A firm local partnership, with anagreed strategy or plan;

• Farming playing a central rolewithin a cross-sectoral initiative;

• Resources focused upon buildingentrepreneurial capacity andbusiness linkages; and

• Promotion on the basis of a strongsense of place, Unique SellingPoint (USP) and market niche.

7.44 Interesting examples of initiativesfrom outside Northern Ireland and Irelandillustrate these points clearly. Theseexamples have been selected fromEngland and Germany to illustrate thepoint and are summarised in the textboxes and detailed in Appendix G.

7.45 The exhortation to ‘add value’ tofarm output as a strategy for the future isoften difficult for individual businesses toact upon, because it may require newskills, new market links, a differentapproach to customers and a whole newstyle of business management andpromotion. Small farms in particular,commonly lack both the human andfinancial capital to identify and developthese new ways of working.

7.46 This sub-section seeks to showhow joint working between farming and

non-farming actors in the rural economycan help to address this problem while atthe same time providing a potentiallyinteresting range of new business optionsbeyond the farm sector and helping tocreate interlinked clusters of economicgrowth within a local area. More broadly, itcan help to give farmers a new sense ofworth within their communities and it canincrease non-farming residents’understanding of food production and landmanagement issues.

Supporting successful farmadaptation

Introduction7.47 For Northern Ireland and EUfarmers in general, the decoupling ofsupport from 1 January 2005 willsignificantly change the way in which the

CAP system operates and thus theenvironment in which farmers trade. This istherefore a critical time for farmers toreview their business strategies andconsider new ways forward for the future.However, conventional agri-focused adviceand business planning may not offersolutions for the majority of farmbusinesses who will find it difficult tocompete on commodity marketsparticularly in the short-term. Theemphasis now needs to be on familiesdeveloping a diverse portfolio of farm andnon-farm, or food and non-food enterpriseor employment with which to supportthemselves.

7.48 Multi-activity among farms inNorthern Ireland, as in many parts ofEurope, is already the norm. However, formany families, non-farm income is earned

Text Box 7: Farming Connect Wales

Farming Connect is a service that aims to provide a comprehensive review, advice andbusiness planning support service to individual farm enterprises. Under the scheme advisorsoffer an extended period of support to each business as they work through a review of theirassets and liabilities and put together a new business plan for the future. The process alsoincorporates a free environmental audit which highlights the potential for the farm to enhanceits environmental management and income via agri-environment schemes or other ventures.The service has been highlighted as particularly successful because of the wide range ofsupport that it offers, as well as the relative ease of access to further sources of assistancein line with what is appropriate under each emerging business plan. The environmentalelement in Farming Connect is another recent development which is also proving popularamong recipients and could be very relevant if applied within a Northern Ireland context.

Text Box 8: Rural Hubs in the West Midlands, England

One of the longest established rural hubs is the Warwickshire rural hub, set up in 2003. Itprovides a direct communication channel to organisations that can help rural businesses,practical events tailored to local needs, opportunities to network with like-minded people,assistance with collaborative business ventures, visits to look at best practice examples, andaccess to training and skills development. Membership of the hub is free to all farm and ruralbusinesses in the county, and members automatically receive a quarterly newsletter andregular postal or email notices about hub events and activities.

The Warwickshire hub has spawned a series of business-led groups concentrating theirmeetings and activities around particular kinds of enterprise. They currently include thefollowing broad topic areas such as food and drink processing and distribution; Alternativecrops; tourism and farm attractions; waste management; and, farming.

The fact that much activity and enthusiasm for the hubs and their work has clearly beengenerated among farming communities in the West Midlands is testament to the potentialinterest in this kind of approach to business adaptation, in the current climate. NorthernIreland is well placed to build on its existing enterprise creation infrastructure. This real taskis to better orientate it towards the farming community. This has already began under LEADERplus through the activities of the twelve LEADER groups.

17 Dwyer, Baldock, Beaufoy, Bennett, Lowe and Ward (2001)Europe’s Rural Futures: The Nature of Rural Development II –comparative report to WWF/Land Use Policy Group, published byIEEP, London

66


via low or unskilled employment, frequentlyon a temporary basis, which may be usefulin the short term but may generate moreconcerns for the future. In somesituations, farming families have becomestretched personally and financially andfeel ill-equipped to cope with the newchanges on the horizon.

Help to re-think and re-equipfarm businesses for the future7.49 Experience from a number ofcountries has demonstrated that policiescan be effectively designed and deliveredto help farmers overcome the obstacles tosuccessful adaptation for the future. Thesepolicies focus particularly on providingsupport in the form of an easy-to-accessprogramme of help with training, adviceand planning that can embrace wholefamilies and can provide them with thetime, space and confidence to addresstheir situation and develop positive andmore secure strategies for the future. Inparticular, successful programmes tend touse a range of sources of expertise fromareas beyond the traditional ‘farm advice’community, and focus on a holisticapproach to the audit and reorganisationof farm business and farm familyresources that can meet a range of needsin a co-ordinated way.

7.50 Examples of highly-regarded farmadaptation programmes can be found inWales (Farming Connect), Ireland (theOpportunities for Farm Families

Programme), and Sweden (the Laftproject). In England, new farmer-ledapproaches to this issue are anotherpromising model that could be of value toNorthern Ireland. These approaches canbe linked for example, in Northern Irelandto the DETI/ Invest NI support for smallbusiness development, the thirty plusenterprise agencies (many of which arelocated in rural areas) throughout NorthernIreland and the various programmes suchas those under the ‘Go-For-It’ logo co-ordinated under Enterprise NorthernIreland. In Northern Ireland there is alsosome evidence of information sharingbetween the LEADER and Invest NI Start aBusiness Programme but to date the levelof co-ordination has not developed beyondthis stage. Examples of farm adaptationinitiatives from elsewhere (Wales and theWest Midlands) are summarised in the textboxes and detailed in Appendix G.

Conclusions on farm adaptation7.51 This discussion and the examplespresented seek to illustrate a growingrecognition by policy makers and thoseliving and working in rural areas that it isimportant to focus upon helping people toacquire the skills, information andknowledge to help themselves, as theyface up to a new future. Providing thathelp in ways that encourage and enablepeople to make good use of it withoutfeeling that they are being dictated to andwith a strong sense of ownership in theprocess, are keys to success. These

insights should certainly have relevance tothe current and future rural and agri-fooddevelopment processes in NorthernIreland.

Rural White Papers in theRepublic of Ireland andother UK regions

Introduction7.52 As stated earlier in the report therehave recently been calls for a Rural WhitePaper in Northern Ireland. With this inmind, it is useful to review the progress ofthe various White Papers in otherjurisdictions. The following paragraphs arebased on an analysis of both the first ruralwhite papers published for England,Scotland and Wales between October1995 and March 1996, and the morerecent papers developed by theDepartment of Agriculture and Food in theRepublic of Ireland in 1999 and Defra in2004 (see Text Box 9).

7.53 When reviewing the actual ruralpolicies in the White Papers the firststriking thing to note is the absence of anyparticularly new or innovative policies orprogrammes. Rather the papers are largelya compilation of existing measures andpolicies that are of relevance to ruralareas. The essential function of the WhitePapers is not to develop new ruralinitiatives but to bring together and outlinekey rural policies across government andensure that the main sectoral departments(i.e. health and transport) takeconsideration of the specific needs andrequirements of rural areas. In this lightthe differences between the rural WhitePapers are largely with regard to theprocess and approach as opposed to thesubstance of policy.

7.54 The following paragraphs outlinesome of the key themes running throughthe White Papers.

Integration7.55 Given that the overall emphasis ofthe White Papers is mainly to provide anoverall statement of the aims ofgovernment rural policy, is it not surprising

Text Box 9: Rural White Papers and Rural Strategies

• Scottish Office (1995) Rural Scotland: People, Prosperity and Partnership.• Welsh Office (1996) A Working Countryside for Wales.• Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Department of the Environment

(1996) Rural England.• Scottish Office (1998) Towards a Development Strategy for Rural Scotland.• Department of Agriculture and Food (1999) Ensuring the Future: A Strategy for

Rural Development in Ireland – A White Paper on Rural Development.• Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (2000) Our Countryside: the future.

A fair deal for rural England.• Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2004) Rural Strategy.

67


that integration and providing a frameworkfor development is a common themeacross all documents. All White Papersacknowledge the inter-dependence of threecomponents of sustainable development(economic, social and environmental) andthat the response is to develop policy in anintegrated way both in terms of nationalpolicy development and delivery at thelocal level.

7.56 Indeed, integration has been alongstanding feature of White Papers. Thefirst Rural White Paper in England in 1996for example, Rural England, acknowledgedthat given the breath of the challenges inthe countryside, no one governmentdepartment could assume soleresponsibility and that a cross-cuttingdocument required a more flexibleapproach. On this basis, both the DoE andMAFF jointly commissioned the WhitePaper with the understanding that thefocus should not solely be on agricultureand the environment. All departments wereinvolved to ensure that the rural dimensionwas considered across other importantpolicy objectives.

7.57 Following on from this, the Scottishrural strategy, ‘Towards a DevelopmentStrategy for Rural Scotland (1998)’,emphasises the role of the Rural AgendaSteering Group which brings togethersenior officials with the responsibility forthe main areas of government policy whichimpact on rural areas. This Group ischarged with the responsibility ofdiscussing cross-cutting issues in ruralareas and ensuring that rural dimensionsare reflected in policy thinking and thatpolicy development is integrated.

7.58 Also reflecting on the need for‘joined-up policy’, the White Paper forEngland, ‘Our Countryside: the future(2000)’, establishes a new cross-departmental Regional Co-ordination Unit.The Unit seeks to co-ordinate initiatives atthe regional and local level, acknowledgesthe need to work in partnership with arange of agencies and sets out a role forsenior members of MAFF to participatefully in the work of the Government Offices

for the Regions. Similarly, the White Paperin the Republic of Ireland, ‘Ensuring theFuture: A Strategy for Rural Development inIreland (1999)’, establishes an integratedand multi-dimensional approach to policydevelopment as a key principle of thedocument. To facilitate this, a number ofinstitutional arrangements are set outincluding an Interdepartmental PolicyCommittee that will aim to ensure policyco-ordination at the highest level andmonitor the implementation of the strategyin the White Paper.

7.59 The White Paper in the Republic ofIreland sets out a commitment to greaterco-operation with appropriate Departmentsand agencies in Northern Ireland inimplementing programmes for economicand social development. In this regard, therole of the Steering Committee on Cross-border Rural Development18 is highlightedwhich aims to: share experiences and bestpractice on ‘bottom up’ initiatives;maximise the economic and social benefitsof EU and national programmes; monitorprogress on local development and co-ordinate responses to plans developed bycross-border communities; and, act as aforum for reconciling policy and practicesto facilitate progress on local ruraldevelopment initiatives.

7.60 Furthermore, in accordance withStrand Two provisions of the Agreement, anumber of areas have been identified forenhanced co-operation including:

• Promoting maximum co-operationin the implementation of ruraldevelopment programmes and onEU programmes;

• Exchanging information onexperience and best practice inboth jurisdictions in relation to ruraldevelopment; and

• Examining the scope for a commonapproach to the feasibility ofdeveloping cross-border area basedstrategies and rural developmentresearch.

Examining rural areas7.61 An assessment of the WhitePapers identifies slight differences placedon the composition of rural areas. In theScottish rural strategy (1998) for instance,the diversity of rural areas is stressed andit is emphasised that there is no one ruralScotland that can be squeezed into thesame mould. The Paper aims to avoidsetting out a range of specific ruralinitiatives and developing a blueprint forrural development centrally but rather setsout at building a framework within whichstrategies for rural development can evolveat the right level. By contrast, althoughacknowledging the regional difference, theEnglish White Paper (2000) adopts a morestandard approach by identifying a rangeof challenges which are facing rural areasand outlining a series of initiatives to meetthem. However, following a review of theWhite Paper and detailed analysis of theevidence base for rural policy, the recentlypublished ‘Rural Strategy 2004’ by Defraproposes a more flexible approach toencourage local and regional differenceand highlights that there is nohomogenous ‘rural England’.

7.62 While all White Papers state theimportance of sustainable development,different points of emphasis have alsobeen placed on economic, social andenvironmental needs and objectives.Reflecting on the first English, Welsh andScottish Rural White Papers published inthe mid 1990s, Lowe (1997) commentsthat the Scottish and Welsh documentsgive more emphasis to the social agendaand are centred on how to sustain ruralcommunities and ensure their cultural andeconomic vitality. On the other hand, it isheld that the English document is morepreoccupied with sustaining thecountryside as a ‘national asset’,reconciling economic and environmentalobjectives and ensuring that the ruralenvironment and way of life are notsubmerged in an urban culture. Indeed, inthe most recent White Paper for England,‘Rural Strategy 2004’, enhancing the valueand natural beauty of the countryside as anational asset for the benefit of ruralcommunities and society in general is one

18 The Steering Committee on Cross-border Rural Developmentwas established at the Anglo-Irish Inter-Governmental Conferencein September 1991. The Committee comprises senior officials ofthe Department of Agriculture and Food in the Republic of Irelandand the Department for Agriculture and Rural Development inNorthern Ireland

68


of the key objectives of the strategy.

7.63 By contrast, the Scottish ruralstrategy of 1998 states that the overallaim of all its policies for rural Scotland isto foster and enable the sustainabledevelopment of rural communities, whilethe role of the countryside as a nationalasset is not outlined to the same degreeas the English White Paper. However, in itsNational Planning Policy Guidelines forrural development (1999), the ScottishOffice acknowledges the overarching aimsof the 1998 rural strategy and with a viewto how these should be interpreted forplanning and development control, addedanother key principle, ‘to protect and,where appropriate, enhance thecountryside’.

A community and regional basedapproach7.64 Across all the White Papers thereis a common understanding that ruralneeds and problems are best addressedat the local community level. In the firstRural White Papers developed in Britain,the community ethos was emphasised withthe documents stating that ‘local peopleare generally best placed to identify theirown needs and solutions to them’ (EnglishRWP, 1996), that ‘change where it isneeded [should] come from the communityitself’ (Scottish RWP, 1995), and that‘rural communities do not want solutionsimposed on them’ (Welsh RWP, 1996). Inrealising this ethos, each of the WhitePapers placed considerable emphasis onbeing responsive to rural communities,encouraging them to express their ownneeds and expanding the scope for theseneeds to be met locally through communityeffort19 (Hodge, 1997).

7.65 The community theme hascontinued across each of the more recentdocuments with the English White Paper of2000 stating that rural communitiesshould play a much bigger part in runningtheir own affairs, and influencing and

shaping their future development. To thisend, a greater role in service delivery isproposed for town and parish councilsworking in partnership with principalauthorities (i.e. local government), andmore assistance is offered to help ruralcommunities develop town, village andparish plans that will set out the problemsthat need to be tackled. To supplementthis, the White Paper also envisages aregional approach with the eightGovernment Offices acting as a voice ofcentral government and managingdepartments and facilitating linkagesbetween local partners and programmes.However, despite efforts to develop acommunity and regional approach, criticshave argued that the regional machineryreforms are too incremental and timidparticularly in the light of the challengesfaced in the economic development of the‘struggling’ rural localities and in therestructuring of the farming sector20.

7.66 The need to incorporate localcommunities in the rural developmentprocess is also expressed in the IrishRural White Paper. Identified as one of thekey principles the document states theimportance of gaining the activeinvolvement of the rural community – thosewho are the targets of policy, including thepoor and socially excluded – as partners inthe planning process. Nevertheless, otherthan outlining that the County DevelopmentBoards (which are partnerships of localauthorities, state agencies, governmentdepartments, local development bodiesand the social partners including thevoluntary and community sector) willdevelop strategies to articulate andimplement the proposals in the WhitePaper, little detail is provided on how amore participative community led approachto rural development will be achieved.Furthermore, while the White Paper aimsto facilitate greater regional development,there is no commitment to devolvedecision making. Rather, the strategy

outlines the regional planning role ofRegional Assemblies, Regional Authoritiesand state agencies, and notes that theGovernment is committed to integration byestablishing common operational regions,harmonising the boundaries of statebodies and co-ordinating plans.

7.67 While also advocating a communityand regional approach, the Scottish ruralstrategy (1998) is relatively advanced inthis regard in setting out a tier ofpartnerships at the national and locallevel. The National Rural Partnership(NRP) brings together, at a Scottish level,representatives of the main governmentdepartments, agencies, local governmentand the private and voluntary sectors toco-ordinate rural policy. The NRP, inter alia,acts as an interface between nationalgovernment and local partnerships,advises government on policies ofimportance to rural areas, proposes newideas on achieving sustainable ruraldevelopment and advises government onthe allocation of funding to ruralobjectives. Below the NRP, local authoritieshave been given a lead role in facilitatingStrategic Rural Partnerships of governmentagencies, the voluntary sector and thecommunity that will aim to produce anddeliver a rural development strategy fortheir area. Finally, to support the StrategicRural Partnerships, local partnerships willalso seek to empower local communitiesand articulate a vision which reflects localneeds and concerns.

7.68 The Defra Rural Strategy 2004proposes a greater decision making rolefor Regional Development Agencies (RDAs)and local authorities and a clearerdistinction in responsibilities for policy anddelivery in the development of rural policy,taking its cue from Lord Haskins’s ‘RuralDelivery Review’ of 200321. Under thisapproach it is envisaged that RDAs will beresponsible for ensuring that the needs oflocal people are reflected in regional level

20 Lowe, P. and Ward, N. (2001) New Labour, New Vision?Labour’s Rural White Paper, Political Quarterly vol.72(3) 386–390

19 Hodge, I. (1997) The Rural White Papers in Great Britain,Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 40(3) 375–403

21 Haskins, C (2003) Rural Delivery Review – A report on thedelivery of government policies in rural England

69


strategies and that funding is directedtowards addressing disadvantage. Toassist this process Defra aims torationalise existing funding streams into asingle rural regeneration programme to bedevolved to the RDAs. To improve thetargeting of resources, it is envisaged thatthe role of local authorities will beenhanced through Local Public ServiceAgreements and a partnership approachwith RDAs. Furthermore, the strategystates that Government Offices and RuralCommunity Councils will play a moreimportant role in social and communityprogrammes, many of which are currentlydelivered by the Countryside Agency.

7.69 However, in promoting greater localautonomy Defra also aims to ensure thatresponsibilities for policy and delivery areclearly defined. Following a review of thearrangements for delivering Governmentrural polices in England, the ‘HaskinsReport22’includes a number ofrecommendations for improving delivery ofrural policies. The recommendations canbe grouped around three key themes:

• Improve accountability through aclearer separation of responsibilityfor policy and delivery functions;

• Bring delivery closer to thecustomer by devolving greaterpower to regional and localorganisations to deliver economicand social policy; and

• Make things better for thecustomer and get greater value formoney for the taxpayer through amore integrated approach toregulation and through simplerservices.

7.70 The report recommended thatDefra’s prime responsibility should be thedevelopment of policy, and it shouldarrange for the delivery of its policiesthrough national, regional and localagencies. Policy and delivery functionsshould be managed separately so that

accountability for policy and delivery isclearly defined. It was held that theseparation of policy and delivery functionsshould oblige Defra to consult deliveryorganisations at the earliest stages inpolicy formulation and to ask the latter toput forward proposals for the effectivedelivery of policy.

7.71 With a view to responding to the‘Haskins Report’ and avoiding overlap atthe local level and blurring ofaccountability, the Defra Rural Strategy2004 notes that ‘lead delivery agents’within partnerships will be identified toprovide a clear focal point for thecustomer. At the national level it is statedthat Defra will assume full responsibilityfor rural and environmental policyfunctions and address strategic issues.

Maintaining national standards7.72 Although the White Papers expressthe need for flexibility in policy delivery toaccommodate local and regionaldifference, they also state that rural areasshould meet national standards withregard to public service delivery. Forinstance, the Scottish rural strategy(1998) states that with increasinginteraction between rural and urban areas,two distinct societies with distinctinterests do not exist and it not thepurpose of government policy to set ruralScotland apart. To this end, the RuralAgenda Steering Group is given a role toensure that rural issues are promoted andthat policies and the mechanisms ofdelivery are adjusted to take account ofrural conditions. Similarly, the Irish WhitePaper (1999) establishes rural proofing asan over-riding principle of the strategy toensure that policy makers are aware of thelikely impact of policy proposals on theeconomic, social and environmentalwellbeing of rural communities. It ismaintained that procedures for ruralproofing will be introduced for applicationby all departments.

7.73 The English White Paper of 2000,on the other hand, goes further than theScottish and Irish documents by settingout minimum standards and targets as a

checklist covering access to and thedelivery of public services in rural areasand aiming to review this standardannually. It is held that this review processwill be led by the Cabinet Committee onRural Affairs in light of the annual reportson rural proofing produced by theCountryside Agency, governmentdepartments and eight governmentoffices. More recently, with the publicationof the Rural Strategy 2004, it is proposedthat rural proofing and review will beenhanced with the establishment of arefocused Countryside Agency that willprovide expert advice to government andadvocacy on behalf of rural people.

Ongoing consultation andfeedback7.74 Although the Scottish RuralStrategy 1998 outlines a role for theNational Rural Partnership (NRP) and otherlocal partnerships acting as an interfacebetween national government and localcommunities, the English White Paper of2000 provides more detail on ongoinggovernment consultation and reviewprocesses. For instance, at the nationallevel it is held that a National RuralSounding Board (bringing togethergovernment departments and a widevariety of organisations and individualswith an interest in rural policy) will beestablished to meet once a year to assessthe government performance.

7.75 To complement these mechanismsat the national level, the Rural Strategy2004 also aims to build closer linksbetween the Regional Affairs Forums(which bring rural stakeholders within eachregion) and Ministers from relevantdepartments to ensure stronger feedbackfrom each region.

7.76 With a view to facilitating aparticipative approach to monitoring andreview, the Irish White Paper also statesthat a National Rural Development Forumwill be established to debate currentissues, review existing programmes todetermine their impact and identifysuitable policy responses to ruralproblems. The membership of the Forum is22 Haskins, C (2003) Rural Delivery Review – A report on the

delivery of government policies in rural England

70


to include government departments, stateagencies, the Regional Assemblies andAuthorities, local authorities, the socialpartners, local development bodies, andthe wider voluntary and community sector.

Conclusions on Rural WhitePapers7.77 Drawing together the approaches inthe rural White Papers, a number ofcommon themes or can be identified:

• First, each of the White Papersoutline the importance of a seniorofficial grouping or structure thatbrings together departments at thenational level to ensure co-ordination, facilitate a multi-dimensional approach to policydevelopment and discuss cross-cutting rural issues;

• Secondly, in acknowledging thediversity of rural areas, the WhitePapers refrain from developing onecommon rural strategy and ratherpropose a framework under whichstrategies can evolve at the mostappropriate level;

• Thirdly, with the commonunderstanding that rural needs andproblems are best addressed atthe local level, a greater role inservice delivery for localpartnerships and local and regionalauthorities is established. Althoughthe roles and levels of autonomydo vary;

• Fourthly, to ensure that ruralissues are promoted in policydelivery, the White Papersemphasise the importance of ruralproofing and organisational or inter-departmental group structures tofacilitate implementation; and

• Finally, each of the White Papersoutline the role for a partnership orforum organisation to act as aninterface between government andlocal communities, assessgovernment performance, ensurefeedback from the local/ regional

level, and identify policy proposalsand responses.

7.78 There has been considerabledebate prior to and during the research forthis study about the need for a ‘WhitePaper’ in NI. It is important to highlightthat much of the content and themesemerging in this study (which will befollowed up in DARD’s own review) aresimilar to the content of the other ‘WhitePapers’ reviewed above. As such thisstudy, in taking an ‘all embracing’approach to rural policy (includingconsideration of areas beyond core DARDactivities) and the actions that follow, hasthe potential to achieve much of what hasresulted from the ‘White Papers’ in otherjurisdictions. Clearly however, this studydoes not represent a firm ‘statement ofintent’ from Government, which WhitePapers do represent. In reflecting on thedebate within this study, while there isclear support in some ‘quarters’ for aWhite Paper, the support is not totallyuniversal. In particular, some individualsreflect the view that the call for a ‘WhitePaper’ has been more directed towardsachieving an integrated policy andprogramming approach for a rural areas inNI. It is important to highlight that thisstudy does not preclude consideration of a‘White Paper’ in NI.

7.79 In Northern Ireland, followingdevolution, the Department of Agricultureand Rural Development (DARD) was setup as one of the 10 Northern IrelandDepartments and its remit has been totake responsibility for agriculture and ruraldevelopment in Northern Ireland. As aresult of the soundings undertaken to dateit is evident that whilst agriculture stronglyfits within DARD, the rural developmentelement essentially cuts across a numberof Government Departments such as DSDin rural community development, DOE interms of environmental protection andheritage and DRD in terms of ruralplanning.

7.80 The following paragraphs providean overview summary of where‘agriculture’ and ‘rural development’

currently sit within other jurisdictions:• In England there are 21

Government Departments. TheDepartment that is responsible foragriculture and rural developmentis the Department of Environment,Food and Rural Affairs (Defra);

• In Wales there are 7 GovernmentDepartments. The field ofagriculture and rural developmentis covered by the Department forEnvironment, Planning andCountryside and the WelshDevelopment Agency;

• In Scotland there are 6Government Departments.Agriculture and Rural Developmentis the responsibility of the ScottishExecutive Environment and RuralAffairs Department (SERAAD); and

• In the Republic of Ireland there are17 Government Departments andagriculture and rural policy is splitbetween three of the Departments.Department of Community, Ruraland Gaeltacht Affairs (DCRGA)has specific responsibility for ruraldevelopment initiatives whilst theDepartment of Agriculture andFood (DAF) and the Department ofCommunications, Marine andNatural Resources (DCMNR) haveresponsibility for agriculture andfisheries.

7.81 Broadly, throughout the UK allagriculture and rural development fallwithin the remit of one Department withthe exception of the Republic of Ireland. Inthis case it is split amongst threeDepartments. This is summarised in Figure7.1.

71


The New Zealandexperience in relation topolicy approaches andinitiatives used in relation toRural Development7.82 In any consideration of RuralDevelopment Policy, it is worthwhileconsidering experiences gained elsewhere.In this respect, we have sought to obtainexperience based on the impact of reformsexperienced in New Zealand. While thesingle farm payment will still provide asubstantial cushion against the freemarket making any direct comparisonsdifficult, the New Zealand exampleillustrates how farmers readjust when theiroutput is no longer connected to supportmeasures.

7.83 In the decade from the mid 1980sto mid 1990s, government policy todismantle support to the farm sectormeant that New Zealand farming movedfrom a relatively high income, protected,low-risk environment, to a low income,unprotected environment in which industryand individual farmers carried the risks.The initial effects of the various reformswere significant. Particularly, as theagricultural sector experienced significant

capital losses, restructuring and changesin farm income. Farmers minimised theirinputs and reduced livestock numbers andelements of the rural community suffereda severe economic downturn. It was adifficult and stressful time for the entirerural sector in New Zealand.

7.84 Despite the difficulties facing therural sector, the Government in NewZealand stood firm on its reforms and aslow recovery in farm profit began after 2or 3 years. More interestingly from aEuropean perspective, the deregulation ofagricultural markets forced a restructuringof the processing industries, as well asprogress into new markets and newproducts. Overall, production, processingand marketing channels became muchmore efficient. Productivity in theagriculture sector increased markedly withproductivity growth 3.5 times higher thanin the economy as a whole.

7.85 On the grounds of fair treatmentwith other sectors, farmers pushed veryhard for reform in the rest of the economyto reduce the prices that they had to payfor farm inputs. Overall the fall inprofitability of, for example, sheep

enterprises relative to other types offarming led to major changes in land usepatterns. It is estimated that over thedecade between 1984 and 1999 the areaof grassland under sheep and beef cattledeclined by almost two million hectares. Ofthis, just over one million hectares werechanged to other grassland uses such asdairy farming and diverse uses thatincluded horticulture and semi-urbanactivities. The remaining hectares werediverted in forestry or involved retirementof marginal or ‘handicapped’ land.

7.86 However, although the extent ofthis change is likely to be less marked inthe EU because of the cushioning effect ofthe SFP on farm incomes, the pattern ofsignificant changes in the balance ofoutputs and land uses, with an importantgrowth in more ‘unusual’ or high valuekinds of product (e.g. wine and venison),as well as increased interest indiversification options, give some pointersto what might be anticipated in NI assupport becomes fully decoupled.

Rural Development7.87 While agriculture in New Zealandstill remains of crucial importance to the

Figure 7.1: Departments responsible for Agriculture and Rural Development in UK Regions

Wales

Responsibilities:-- Rural development- Agricultural- Forestry- Fishing- Advisory service for

farmers, agriculturalresearch and education

- Veterinary services andadministration of animalhealth and welfarepolicies

- Application of EUagricultural policy to NI

DARD Defra SEERAD EPC DCRGA / DAF / DCMNR

DCRGA responsibilities:-•Rural Developmentinitiatives

DAF responsibilities:•Agricultural production,food safety, agri-food,animal health and agri-environment

DCMNRresponsibilities:-•Energy, Marine andNatural Resources

Northern Ireland England Scotland Ireland

Responsibilities:--Agriculture-Environmental issues-Fisheries-Food-Forestry-Water and Flood Defence-Town and CountryPlanning.

Responsibilities:--Rural development-Agriculture-Environment

Responsibilities:--Sustainable Farming Foodand Fisheries-Natural Resources andRural Affairs-Environment

72


New Zealand economy and the rural areasstill remain important to policy makers,there are few specific policies that dealdirectly with rural development per se.

7.88 The reason that there are fewspecific policies that deal directly with ruraldevelopment per se is that the NewZealand approach to rural development isone whereby most of the policies thataffect the rural area and therefore ruraldevelopment are actually part of overallpolicy development in New Zealand.

7.89 The broad philosophy of NewZealand’s approach to rural developmentcan be articulated as follows. There isgrowing official recognition that peopleliving in the more geographically remoteand isolated areas do have greaterdifficulty in retaining and maintainingservices, or participating in cultural orsocial activity compared to people livingclose to larger centres of population. Thisconcern which was aired by bothGovernment and the farming sector wasinitially linked to concern about the abilityof rural centres to service the agriculturalsector. The viability of rural communitieswas seen in the past as dependent upontheir ability to provide commercial servicesparticularly to the agricultural sector.

7.90 Whilst this concern clearly remains,community viability is no longer regardedas dependent on either the community’sability to service agriculture or on its abilityto offer a full range of services. There isgrowing awareness that a community canbe drawn out of economic decline throughjudicious investment in enterprises basedon local resources and advantage. As aresult, the New Zealand Government hascentralised many Government services inthe larger urban centres. Ruralcommunities whose economy waspreviously supported by the artificialsupport of subsidies or by providinggovernment services which have now beenshifted to urban centres, are now wideningtheir scope and looking at ways of usinglocal resources to maintain and developtheir viability and sustainability. Theemphasis in New Zealand is now on

enabling these rural communities toobtain the information and skills-base sothat they are in a position to resolve theirproblems themselves, through collectiveaction, sometimes in partnership withGovernment. In this sense, there aresome striking parallels with the developingrhetoric of the EU on rural development,which stresses both competitiveness andpartnership as important factors in thisprocess.

New Zealand governmentapproach to rural development7.91 In order to take forward the overallpolicy development, the Government inNew Zealand has a Regional DevelopmentProgramme led by the Ministry ofEconomic Development. It has identifiedinnovation, skills, global connections andinfrastructure as important areas needingsupport and investment. The rural areasare recognised as having needsparticularly in relation to skills andinfrastructure.

7.92 The Regional Developmentprogramme has a strong rural area focuswithin it. The aim is to stimulate the ruralarea ‘on a par’ with the urban areas interms of infrastructure, education, healthand government services. It is importantto note that none of these programmes isdirectly aimed at the agricultural sector,although farmers and farm families canrespond to them just as any other sectorsor community members can. Theprogrammes also seek to improve livingconditions and opportunities for thoseliving in the rural area.

7.93 Under the Regional DevelopmentProgrammes, there are various sub-programmes. These are set out under thefollowing headings:

• The introduction of high speedbroadband internet infrastructureto rural areas;

• The provision of so called‘heartland’ services – centres fromwhich Government services can bedelivered in rural areas, andoutreach services where a numberof agencies collaborate to provide

services in remote communities;• The Rural Education Activities

Programme (REAP);• Rural information provided through

the Rural Bulletin published by MAFin Association with the Departmentof Internal Affairs, the Ministry ofEconomic Development andIndustry New Zealand. This is afree monthly publication for ruralpeople that gives an overview ofchanges and happenings thatmight affect them and theircommunities;

• Agricultural training; and• Priority for farm businesses within

rural development.

7.94 The only other policies orapproaches that directly affect the ruralareas are the Sustainable Farming Fund,the Readiness and Recovery Plan forNatural and Climatic Disasters in RuralAreas and Rural Co-ordinators. Lastly, inaddition to the above, the New ZealandGovernment is also facilitating thedevelopment of organic agriculture throughvarious initiatives.

Overall Conclusions7.95 By reflecting on the experiencesand learning from other rural developmentprogrammes and initiatives, a number ofkey themes or lessons can be identifiedthat can inform the learning process forthe following section and the rural review.

7.96 First, while the importance of theenvironment is being increasinglyrecognised in relation to tourism inparticular, the economic potential of ruralareas needs to be more clearly understoodand explored in greater depth. In thisregard more research or pilot initiativesneed to be undertaken to examine theentrepreneurial potential of migrants anddeveloping branding initiatives for ruralareas. The development of new tools for‘local environmental appraisals’ could alsoprovide a useful method to assesswhether and how the environment can beutilised for economic gain. Furthermore,the involvement of local people andfarmers (in particular establishing linkages

73


with agri-environment schemes) isimportant to capitalise on and nurture newbusiness opportunities. However, toenable the potential of environmentalinitiatives, investment in both physical andhuman capital is required to establish thenecessary conditions to facilitate newareas of growth.

7.97 Secondly, the learning from otherexperiences has reinforced the importanceof social capital and the community basedapproach to rural development. Aspreviously discussed in this report, thelocally based approach has been alongstanding feature of rural initiatives inNorthern Ireland and assisted inestablishing a healthy communityinfrastructure and engaging withgovernment.

7.98 Thirdly, despite being a complexand difficult task, partnership working canbe regarded as an important mechanismfor building social capital and buildinglinkages within communities and betweenlocal communities and Government. Fromthe other experiences, lessons in relationto flexible devolved funding, a coherentstrategy to guide work and clear ‘rules ofengagement’ can all be applied toNorthern Ireland to assist in reducing thebureaucracy associated with partnershiparrangements. In addition, facilitatinggreater synergy between partnerships andrestricting fragmentation at the local levelis important in this regard.

7.99 Fourthly, given the existingproblems involved in engaging the widerfarming community in rural developmentactivity, other learning has highlightedinnovative initiatives in terms of buildingentrepreneurial capacity and businesslinkages, developing local food co-operatives and placing greater focus onfarming and consumer interests.Furthermore, considering the transitional

arrangements in the agricultural sectors,there are important lessons in businesscapacity building and establishing ruralhubs that could be developed.

7.100 Fifthly, as well as outlining ruralpolicies across Government in onedocument, the White Papers also establishkey management or implementationmechanisms that can inform the thinkingon rural governance and the delivery ofrural policy in Northern Ireland. Theserelate to structures of inter-departmentalco-ordination; the separation ofresponsibility for policy and deliveryfunctions; frameworks for local andregional service delivery; structures tofacilitate the implementation of ruralproofing; and, partnerships or forums toassess performance, ensure feedback andidentify policy proposals.

7.101 Finally, the New Zealand experiencedemonstrates that freeing up agriculturalmarkets can stimulate the development ofinnovation and a more diverse product andenterprise portfolio among the farm sector.Alongside the de-regulation of agriculturalmarkets, however, an active regionaldevelopment programme is alsoattempting to stimulate rural areas to be‘on a par’ with urban areas in terms ofinfrastructure, education and governmentservices. While establishing the necessaryconditions for development and facilitatingequitable provision between urban andrural, the emphasis is on enabling ruralcommunities to build a strongerinformation and skills base, and promotingself help through collective action.

7.102 Having considered learning fromother experiences, the next Section aimsto bring these lessons forward to informthe thinking on the future directions forDARD in relation to the review of ruralpolicy.

74


8 Way forward and future directions

Introduction8.1 Set within the context of strategicdevelopments at the international, EU andnational level, this section outlines futuredirections and considerations relating to away forward for rural development inNorthern Ireland. This is done by proposingchanges for rural policy and consideringthe structures needed for effective andintegrated delivery.

8.2 The section begins by reflecting onthe international and EU policy ‘backdrop’to a future rural policy for NI. It isimportant to note that this review is timelyin view of a number of key developmentsat international and EU levels.

8.3 It is not possible to separate afuture rural policy from region-wide policymaking and governance structures and assuch, this section seeks to reference theimplications arising from the Review ofPublic Administration and the ‘focusedassessment’ of the Regional DevelopmentStrategy 2025 for NI.

8.4 Thereafter, the section sets outsome of the aspirations and views of thoseinvolved in the study for the futuredirections of rural policy in NI and sets outprinciples or criteria to be considered inarticulating a future rural policy. Finally, byreflecting on these principles, the rationalefor intervention and the needs of ruralareas, the section outlines the potentialway forward for rural development byexamining overarching policy objectivesand considering the structures needed foreffective and integrated policy delivery.This is presented in the form of a range ofoptions for the future with the relativemerits of each being discussed in light ofthe specified principles for a future ruralpolicy in NI.

International perspective

Trade obligations8.5 The World Trade Organisation(WTO) is currently amidst negotiations fora new trade round, the so-called ‘Doha’round, in which the encouragement ofgreater international trade in agricultural

products, among other things, is set to bea key feature. The WTO trade talks, whichbegan in Doha, Qatar in 2001, collapsedlast year at Cancun in Mexico, withMinisters from the developing worldabandoning the talks and objecting thatWestern economies would not promise towithdraw subsidies for farmers. Inparticular, Sir Donald Curry (Chairman ofMeat & Livestock Commission during theBSE crisis) and Franz Fischler argue thatthe payment of subsidies to farmersensures that farmers, via agriculturalrestructuring measures, adjust theirbusiness, management methods andagricultural practices to meet society’sdemands. Therefore subsidising farmers isimportant for the purpose of supplyingconsumers with food of high qualitystandards and to ensure a ‘livingcountryside’ (2003, Salzburg Conference).

8.6 However as of 1st August 2004 theWTO negotiations are back ‘on track’ withan agreement in Geneva involving 147member governments. This encompassedhistoric reforms in global agricultural trade.The agreed framework envisages thecomplete elimination of agriculturalexport subsidies, which the United Statesand others have been broadly seeking, aswell as new disciplines on export creditsand, for the first time, on state tradingenterprises, which the EU has always heldshould be treated alongside the exportsubsidy issue. The framework alsoincludes a commitment to greater marketaccess for farm products, with anemphasis on the broad concept that highertariffs on products should face larger cuts.From the perspective of the EU, this islikely to result in increasing competitionfrom producers outside Europe for keyagricultural commodities within the EU,including beef, milk and cereals. It willprobably also require further agriculturalpolicy reform within Europe, particularly forthe dairy and sugar regimes, before theend of this decade.

Environmental obligations8.7 The 1972 United Nations (UN)Conference on Human Environment, inStockholm represented a first step by the

international community in consideringglobal environment, development needsand the concept of ‘sustainabledevelopment’. The event was also referredto as the ‘Earth Summit’. Two decadeslater in 1992 the UN Conference onEnvironment and Development, the‘Second Earth Summit’, was held in Rio deJaneiro and resulted in agreement onAgenda 21 and the Rio Declaration. Thesummit led to the development of theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD),which encouraged all countries to developstrategies and action plans to protectbiodiversity within their own territories.Both the EU and the UK were signatoriesto the CBD and have since developedsubstantive policies on biodiversity. TheEU’s Habitats Directive requires allMember States to establish a network ofprotected areas and take action topreserve key species and habitatsthroughout their territories. In the UK, thislegislative approach is complemented bythe strategic process of biodiversity actionplanning at the national, devolvedadministration, and more local, levels.Gradually, these twin processes arestarting to influence rural land use andmanagement, including the form andemphasis of agricultural policy.

8.8 In 1997, important steps weretaken to address the issue of globalwarming by establishing the Kyotoprotocol, to which the UK and EU areagain signatories. The protocol follows areview of targets originally set out in theRio Declaration, and sets outcommitments by signatories to reducetheir net emissions of greenhouse gases(notably including carbon dioxide andmethane), and to take action at adomestic level in order to deliver againstthese commitments. The Protocol has onlyrecently entered into force following adecision by Russia to sign in autumn2004. Across the EU and within the UK,key actions in response to the Protocol arelikely to include:

• Planting permanent crops orwoodland to increase carbonsequestration;

• The substitution of fossil fuels by

75


renewable materials for energygeneration; and

• Reductions in livestock numbers(since these are a key source ofmethane emissions).

European Union perspective

Future of Structural Funds andCohesion Policy8.9 As indicated earlier in this report,the proposals for the future of StructuralFunds for the period 2007–2013 are setout in the European Commission’s ThirdCohesion report. The proposals articulatea vision for the future of Europe’s policy toreduce disparity and to promote greatereconomic, social and territorial cohesion.

8.10 An overview of the next round ofStructural Funds is illustrated in Figure 8.1and discussed in subsequent paragraphs.

8.11 The current geographically targetedprogrammes under Objectives 1 and 2,and the existing range of CommunityInitiatives, will be replaced by three newsources of funding as follows:

• A fund for ‘convergence’; whichwill focus on integratedprogrammes targeted at thoseregions with less than 75% of theEU average in the new EU25;

• A fund for ‘competitiveness’;programmes which may not behighly geographically targeted butwhich will be used to promoteenhanced competitive economicactivity across the territory; and

• A fund for ‘co-operation’; focusingon the current and formerINTERREG community initiative,encouraging cross border, trans-national and interregional co-operation.

8.12 The potential impact of the nextround of funds can be summarised asfollows:

• Given the new composition of theEU25, it seems likely that the vast

majority of funding for convergencein future will be targeted on thenew Member States from Centraland Eastern Europe, which face thegreatest problems of poverty and alack of economic opportunity. Thiseffectively means the end ofObjective 1 funds for many of thecurrent eligible or transition areaswithin the EU15 (such as NorthernIreland). However, it seems likelythat southern Member States maysecure some convergence fundingon the basis of prior cohesionprinciples and practice;

• Funding for competitiveness ismore likely to be spread acrossboth existing and new MemberStates and it is quite possible thatdifferent regions will be able to bidsuccessfully for these funds on thebasis of a mixture of need andexisting potential. Nevertheless,this fund is anticipated to be muchsmaller than the convergencefunds so it remains unclear to whatextent money is likely to beavailable for areas within the UK;and

• The co-operation fund will remainmore or less similar to the current

INTERREG programmes in bothscale and focus.

8.13 In addition to the above, the ThirdCohesion Report also proposes that allrural development programmes be groupedinto a single instrument under the SecondPillar of the CAP to support both on-farmand wider rural development.

Common Agricultural Policy(CAP) Reform and Future EURural Development Policy8.14 As detailed in Section II, in July2003 the EU agreed a fundamental reformof some major support regimes under theCAP, to take effect in stages from 20041.The most significant of these changes inthe UK has been the decision to fullydecouple support in the beef, arable andsheepmeat regimes and to replace directpayments under these regimes with a new‘single farm payment’ (SFP), from 1January 2005. The new payment will alsoincreasingly incorporate support for dairyproducers, as partial compensation forstaged price cuts in this sector, over thenext few years. The SFP will be awarded to

Figure 8.1: Overview of Structural Funds 2007–2013

1 Similar reforms to a range of regimes of greater significance tosouthern Member States were agreed in April 2004 (includingcotton, tobacco and olive oil)

Structural funds 2007-2013

ConvergenceObjective

CompetitivenessObjective

ERDF & ESF ERDFERDF & ESF

Co-operationObjective

Replacing Obj 1 Replacing Obj 2 andObj 3

ReplacingINTERREG

78% 4%18%Percentage of

budget

76


all farmers who had historically receivedsupport under the previous regimes butwill not require any current production.Instead, SFP recipients will be required toobserve EU environmental regulationsapplying to agriculture (‘cross-compliance’)and to keep all the land on which SFP ispaid in ‘good agricultural andenvironmental condition’ (GAEC),according to precise conditions to bedecided for each region of the UK.

8.15 Another important element of the2003 reform package was an agreementto strengthen rural development under theCAP by gradually shifting a modestproportion of CAP funds away from thesingle farm payment and into the ruraldevelopment measures, so that thebudget for ‘Pillar 2’ will grow slowly overthe next programming period (2007–13).At the same time, a number of new

measures were added to the Pillar 2menu. These changes are shown in Figure8.2.

8.16 In the past for many parts ofEurope, the Structural Fund programmeshave dominated rural development activity,however after 2006, this situation willchange significantly. From 2007, ruraldevelopment programmes under the CAPwill be funded from a new single RuralFund, which is entirely separate fromfuture Structural Funds. As explainedpreviously, this fund will grow slowly overtime as funding is moved from the FirstPillar of the CAP into the Second Pillar via‘compulsory modulation’. At the sametime, the programmes are likely to besimpler, broader and more flexible thanthe current range of measures fundedunder the Second Pillar. In particular it isacknowledged that rural development

policy needs to place agriculture in abroader context that includes theenvironment and the wider rural economy.

8.17 On 14th July 2004 (as detailed inSection I) the European Commissionpublished a new draft Regulation for RuralDevelopment, clarifying how it sees thenew single fund working. An illustrativeoverview of the proposals is set out inFigure 8.3. It is important to recognisethat these are still subject to negotiationand potential change. DARD launched aconsultation in relation to the draftRegulation in September to include aseries of questions in respect of itscontent. The consultation process closedon the 20th December 2004.

8.18 The new draft Regulation for RuralDevelopment set out that programmesmust address 4 clear ‘axes’ or themes ofrural development activity:

• Axis 1: Improving thecompetitiveness of farming andforestry – this includes measuresaimed at improving humanpotential, restructuring physicalpotential and at improving thequality of agricultural productionand agricultural products, such astraining; advisory services forfarmers and forest owners; farmmanagement; modernising farms;improving and developinginfrastructure; helping farmersadapt to standards of Communitylegislation; supporting farmers whoparticipate in food qualityschemes; and supportinginformation and promotionactivities for food quality schemes.The Commission proposes that aminimum of 15% of available fundsbe spent on Axis 1;

• Axis 2: Environment and landmanagement – this includesmeasures aimed at the sustainableuse of agricultural and forestryland. It includes measuresfocusing on agri-environment aid,environmental investment aid andsupport for management in ‘areas

Figure 8.2: Overview of First Pillar and Second Pillar of CAP

CAP First Pillar

PRICE AND MARKETS POLICY

CAP Second Pillar

ENVIRONMENT AND RURALDEVELOPMENT

Former direct payments for beef,sheep, arable to be ‘fully decoupled’from production and merged into a‘Single Farm Payment’ (SFP), paidper hectare on condition that farmersuphold a range of EU environment,farm safety and animal welfarelegislation (Cross Compliance) andkeep land in Good Agricultural andEnvironmental Condition. Dairyprice cuts, partly compensated bySFP.

Direct payments for providing publicgoods such as conserving thecountryside and rural heritage,protecting the environment,supporting farm competitiveness anddeveloping the rural economy.

PROPOSAL 1:-

Shift of moneyfrom First Pillar toSecond PillarthroughMODULATION*and CROSSCOMPLIANCE

*ModulationUnder Agenda 2000, this provision was introduced and was voluntary – Member States could decide to cut theFirst Pillar direct payments and redirect this money into the Second Pillar to fund the accompanying measures(agri-environment, afforestation or LFA payments). The UK is making use of voluntary modulation of 2.5%-5.0% cuts to all farms’ First Pillar payments, to fund agri-environment growth for 2001-2006.

Under the 2003 CAP reform, in addition, compulsory EU modulation will apply from 2005 to all First Pillardirect aids (including the SFP), at a rate of 3% in 2005 rising to 5% per year (not cumulative) by 2007. But allfarms receiving less than 5,000 in total from First Pillar will be exempt from this compulsory EU-widemodulation. Funds raised will be redistributed between Member States according to objective criteria and canbe used to fund any Second Pillar measures, but no Member State will lose more than 20% of its net funds thisway. The UK is able to continue voluntary modulation on top of this provision and has indicated that it will do,to achieve a combined rate of around 10% by 2007, to support new agri-environment scheme growth in each ofthe UK devolved administrations.

An extension of Second Pillar of CAPby integrating new Measures forRural Development in relation toFood Quality; Animal Welfare andsupport to fulfil standards for CrossCompliance.

Current policy2000-2006

New policyKey:-

77


affected by natural handicaps’. Inparticular it reflects a ‘stricter’version of the current LessFavoured Area (LFA) funding orareas affected by Natura 2000designation. The Commissionproposes that agri-environmentalmeasures will be compulsory and aminimum of 25% be spent on Axis2;

• Axis 3: Wider rural development –this includes measures linked todiversifying the rural economy andto improving the quality of life inrural areas, including diversificationout of farming, micro-businesssupport, tourism promotion andmeasures to improve rural qualityof life including village renovationand development and the provisionof basic services. The Commissionproposes that a minimum of 15%be spent on Axis 3; and

• Axis 4: LEADER Method – toencourage the local developmentstrategies that result from a‘bottom-up’ approach. This willresult in the establishment of LocalAction Groups as in previousLEADER programmes. A minimumof 7% of total available funding beset aside for this axis and theLEADER approach may be used todeliver measures from each of thethree priority axes. In effect thismethod will underpin the other

three axes. Three percent of theoverall funding for the period2006–2013 is to be kept inreserve and allocated to theMember States with the bestperforming LEADER programmes.

8.19 It is understood that there will bescope to plan programmes at the regionallevel but that these must be consistentwith new Rural Development strategies tobe defined at both EU and Member Statelevels. Implementation and delivery can beregional or sub-regional, but theCommission’s ‘preferred implementationmethod’ for axis 3, wider ruraldevelopment, is ‘through localdevelopment strategies targeting sub-regional entities’.

8.20 The detailed rules for each themeand respective measure(s) are generallysimpler than is the case for most of thesupport under the current EU RuralDevelopment Regulation (1257/1999). Asa result, more freedom should be given toprogramme planners and managers atregional level, to decide how to targetmeasures and resources. In return,programme authorities and Member Stateadministrations will have to place moreemphasis upon measures and resourcesbeing able to deliver against clear strategicpriorities.

8.21 This draft regulation will bedebated and agreed by the EU AgricultureCouncil in 2004–5, and will clearly set the

framework for the majority of EU ruraldevelopment funding in the UK and Ireland,beyond 2007. It is therefore of centralrelevance to the future of ruraldevelopment policy in Northern Ireland.With Axis 4 referring to an underpinning‘bottom-up approach’, the priorities andmeasures set out under Axes 1–3 areoutlined below.

8.22 It is interesting to note that at thispoint in time, the Regulations promoteForestry alongside agriculture in terms oftraining, restructuring potential andmanaging the land. The policy recognisesthe role that forests can play in ruraleconomies. The proposals contained inthe Regulations relate to new communityaid designed to broaden and improve theeconomic value of forests together withtheir marketability and their relationshipwith developing renewable energy sourcesas well as support for environmentalmanagement in forests alongside similarmeasures for farmed land.

EU environmental policydevelopments8.23 There is growing recognition of theimportance of the environment in EUlegislation and policies. In particular, theimplementation by Member States of theWater Framework Directive, whichbecame part of EU law in 2001, will bevery important for many areas over thecoming decade. This requires a ‘catchmentmanagement’ planning approach or areabased approach to improve water qualityacross the territory of the EU25 andincludes requirements to tackle diffusepollution of water by agriculture and othersources as well as dealing with morereadily identifiable point sources ofpollution. One key target is for all EUwaters to be of ‘good ecological quality’by 2015. This will require concerted actionwithin Northern Ireland targeting significantchanges in practice on NI farms as well aschanges in other sectors.

8.24 In addition, the EU is seeking toaccelerate Member States’ implementationof their obligations under the Birds andHabitats Directives to set up a European

Figure 8.3: Funding for Rural Development 2007–2013

Axis 1Improving

Competitivenessof Farming and

Forestry

Axis 2:Environment and

LandManagement

European Rural Development Fund (EARDF)

Axis 3: WiderRural

Development

Min. 15% Min. 15%Min. 25%

Source of funds

Percentage ofbudget

Axis 4: LEADER

‘Method’

Min. 7%

New Rural Development Regulation 2007-2013

78


Rural Development Priorities (34 measures)

PRIORITY AXIS 1: IMPROVING THE COMPETITIVENESS OF THE AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY SECTOR (16 measures)SUB SECTION 1 – MEASURES AIMED AT IMPROVING HUMAN POTENTIAL

1. Vocational training and information actions for persons engaged in the agricultural and forestry sectors.2. Setting up of young farmers.3. Early retirement of farmers and farm workers.4. Use by farmers and forest holders of advisory services.5. Setting up of farm management, farm relief and farm advisory services, as well as of forestry advisory services.

SUB SECTION 2 – MEASURES AIMED AT RESTRUCTURING PHYSICAL POTENTIAL1. Farm modernization.2. Improving the economic value of forests.3. Adding value to primary agricultural and forestry production.4. Improving and developing infrastructure related to the development and adaptation of agriculture and forestry.5. Restoring agricultural production potential damaged by natural disasters. Introducing appropriate prevention actions.

SUB SECTION 3 – MEASURES AIMED AT IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND PRODUCTS1. Helping farmers to adapt to demanding standards based on Community legislation2. Supporting farmers who participate in food quality schemes.3. Supporting producer groups for information and promotion activities for products under food quality schemes.

SUB SECTION 4 – CONDITIONS FOR TRANSITIONAL MEASURES1. Supporting semi-subsistence farms undergoing restructuring.2. Supporting setting up of producer groups.

PRIORITY AXIS 2: LAND MANAGEMENT (12 measures)SUB SECTION 1 – MEASURES TARGETING THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

1. Natural handicap payments to farmers in mountain areas.2. Payments to farmers in areas with handicaps, other than mountain areas.3. NATURA 2000 payments.4. Agri-environment and animal welfare payments (compulsory).5. Support for non-productive investments.

SUB SECTION 2 – MEASURES TARGETING THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF FORESTRY LAND1. First afforestation of agricultural land.2. First establishment of agro-forestry systems on agricultural land.3. First afforestation of non agricultural land.4. NATURA 2000 payments.5. Forest-environment payments.6. Restoring forestry production potential and introducing prevention actions.7. Support for non-productive investments.

PRIORITY AXIS 3: DIVERSIFICATION OF THE RURAL ECONOMY AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN RURAL AREAS (8 measures)SUB SECTION 1 – MEASURES TO DIVERSITY THE RURAL ECONOMY

1. Diversification into non-agricultural activities.2. Support for the creation and development of micro-enterprises with a view to promoting entrepreneurship and developing

the economic fabric.3. Encouragement of tourism activities.4. Protection, upgrading and management of the natural heritage, so contributing to sustainable economic development.

SUB SECTION 2 – MEASURES TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN RURAL AREAS1. Essential services for the economy and rural population.2. Village renovation and development; conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage.

SUB SECTION 3 – MEASURES TO IMPROVE VOCATIONAL TRAINING, SKILLS ACQUISITION AND ANIMATION1. A vocational training measure for economic actors operating in the fields covered by Priority Axis 3.2. A skills acquisition and animation measure.

Source: New Rural Development Regulation (Pages 24–38) published by European Commission 29th July 2004

79


Network of protected sites (the so-calledNatura 2000 network) and to put in placemechanisms to ensure their protection andadequate management into the future. Inparticular, the proposed new RuralDevelopment Regulation makes specificreference to the potential for MemberStates to use these funds to support themanagement of Natura 2000 sites. In NI,as in the UK as a whole, Natura 2000management is becoming an increasinglyimportant element within the agri-environment schemes, under RuralDevelopment Programmes.

8.25 Finally, implementation of theNitrates Directive is still subject tosignificant delays in many Member Statesand, as a result of the Gothenburg EUsummit’s conclusions on integration of theenvironment into all EU policies, theEuropean Commission is increasinglyapplying a degree of ‘conditionality’ topromote progress in this respect, byrefusing to progress national requests fornew funding measures or programmesuntil adequate steps are taken to fullyimplement the Nitrates Directive. This is aparticularly relevant issue for NorthernIreland, which is currently in the process ofextending its designation of NitrateVulnerable Zones (NVZs) under theDirective to cover the whole territory. TheCommission is delaying its approval of NI’sproposals to launch a new entry level agri-environment scheme until it is satisfiedthat this new action on NVZs will representa full implementation of the NitratesDirective in Northern Ireland. All farmerswithin NVZs must adhere to an approvedAction Plan which imposes restrictions onthe level of nitrogen that can be applied toland.

8.26 The proposed measures and thearrangements for their delivery throughintegrated programmes are likely to be thesubject of ongoing discussion as theRegulations are finalised during the courseof 2004 and into 2005.

Broader issues – the EU budget,and coherence between EUstructural and rural developmentprogrammes8.27 The EU is also currently negotiatingon the subject of its future budget. Underthe Financial Perspectives proposalpublished by the Commission at the end of2003, funds have provisionally beenallocated to the proposed new strands ofEU policy, which would represent a modestgrowth for CAP rural development moneyand a slightly greater increase forstructural funds, and with most of thisfocused upon new Member States.However, both budgets could be vulnerableto pressure from Member States, includingthe UK, Germany and Sweden, calling for asmaller EU budget settlement overall forthe period 2007–13, in order to reduce theamount that national treasuries have tocontribute to Brussels. As yet it is too earlyto predict the outcome of thesenegotiations.

8.28 Despite the general shift in futureCohesion funding towards new MemberStates, the European Commissionrecognises that structural funds willcontinue to be available in many parts ofrural Europe after 2007, including therelatively affluent EU-15. Therefore it hastaken steps to require Member States toconsider all rural developmentprogrammes to explicitly clarify therespective roles and focus of bothstructural and rural development fundswithin their territories, to prevent thepossibility of double-funding of specificactions, or competition between funds forsimilar initiatives.

Strategic implications8.29 The combined effect of thesedifferent developments at internationaland EU levels is likely to be quite profoundfor rural areas and for rural developmentpolicy across NI and indeed the island ofIreland.

8.30 In respect of the internationaltrends, it is anticipated that:

• While the single farm payment willstill provide a substantial cushion

against the free market, there willbe a more competitiveenvironment for conventionalagricultural production within NI,with lower prices and moreinternational competitionparticularly in the dairy sector andalso affecting beef production; and

• There will be more interest withinboth public and private sectors inusing rural areas for energycropping, for renewable energygeneration and/or for carbonsequestration, and increasedemphasis upon encouraging moreextensive farming forenvironmental and biodiversitybenefit.

8.31 In respect of EU level changes andplanned new funding and regulations, itappears that Northern Ireland, with itshistory of sustained support under thestructural funds for regional and ruraldevelopment activities since the late1980s, will see a major change in thescale and the legislative framework for EU-funded rural development activity beyond2007. Particular points to note are asfollows:

• There is likely to be a majordecrease in rural funding from theEU Structural Funds, with futureactions more closely focused onkey sector competitiveness andcross-border integrated actions(possibly also including the Peaceagenda);

• There will be a ‘coming together’and a probably small and gradualincrease in the funding availablefrom the CAP for ruraldevelopment in Northern Irelandas noted earlier. In future, CAPrural development funds in NI willbe required to devote resources tothe four Axes or themes detailedabove, and to place new emphasisupon integrated programming andflexible sub-regional delivery of thedifferent elements, to achievespecific goals and targets in line

80


with EU and UK policy. It alsoappears likely that LFA policy, inparticular, could be subject tosignificant change to meet therequirements of the new EUlegislation (as detailed below);

• There may also be implications forNI from the new RDR in terms ofthe proposed requirement to re-classify Less Favoured Areas(LFAs). Currently, some 70% ofNI’s agricultural land is designatedas LFA, against a Europeanaverage of 54% within the EU-15. Inaddition LFAs currently account fore70m of the funds associated withthe current Rural DevelopmentRegulation Plan, 2000–2006, inwhich they are by far the largestspending element. The draftRegulation proposes a slightlytighter series of criteria for definingLFAs from 2007, based onpermanent ‘handicap’ criteria i.e.low soil productivity and poorclimatic conditions. In addition, it isproposed that the maximumpayment for intermediate zones willreduce from 200 Euro/ha to 150Euro/ha. Both of thesedevelopments have the potentialto reduce the coverage and/orscale of funding for LFAs inNorthern Ireland in future, whichwill become clearer as the debateand negotiations are advanced inthe forthcoming months; and

• Finally, the new RDR envisages astrengthened or wider role forLEADER, as the underpinningmethod for the other three axes.For the future, this broader role forLEADER raises issues about howthe differing components of thecurrent infrastructure wouldinteract and/or be organised.

Review of Public Administration8.32 The Review of Public Administration(RPA) in Northern Ireland is a majorexamination of how public services inNorthern Ireland are organised and

delivered. It has been ongoing since June2002 and a final report on proposedmodels of public administration is due tobe issued for consultation late 2004, early2005. The RPA was presented with thebroad remit of considering differingfeatures of public administration, whichwould best reflect the current politicalclimate and would be consistent with theAgreement and ultimately restoration ofthe Assembly.

8.33 Through a process of research andconsultation, the RPA identified a numberof characteristics that any new publicadministration system should address.These are detailed below:

• Promotion of clarity andconsistency of relationships acrossservice providers;

• Co-ordinating and planning localaction on a strategic basis throughappropriate frameworks;

• Participation and contribution oflocal communities to publicadministration;

• Defining and securing high qualitypublic service delivery;

• Defining the role and relevance ofpartnership arrangements in thefuture planning and delivery ofpublic services;

• Determining the role of differentlevels of administration and ofcentral, regional and sub-regionalorganisations;

• The growing diversity oforganisations involved in publicadministration; and

• How any new system can be moreresponsive to the citizen and bettersustain and deliver a continuingprogramme of public-servicereform.

8.34 The outcome of the RPA could havea significant effect on rural areas. In thelocal government arena the move towardsa smaller number of ‘super-councils’ withextended powers is a key issue. To datethe debate has centred on the number of‘super-councils’ but will progress to alsoconsider the functions in the consultationpaper to be issued later in 2004/early

2005. The ‘long-list’ of functions couldinclude responsibility for urban and ruralregeneration. This is of key relevance tothe view expressed by some in thesoundings process that the policy for ruraldevelopment should remain at the centre(co-ordinated by DARD) and that delivery/implementation should be separate – ineffect at ‘arms-length’. In addition it isenvisaged through the RPA that there couldbe a review of the need for the wide rangeof NDPBs and agencies in NI with a view tosimplification. Again this mirrors the viewsexpressed through the soundings withinthis study that there are a plethora offunding and delivery bodies in the ruraldevelopment realm and that some form ofsimplification for the future would bedesirable.

8.35 A key issue with respect to the RPAis that the future directions for rural policyshould have the potential to complimentfuture structures that may arise. At theheart of the RPA discussions is theconcept of ‘co-terminosity’, that is that theadministrative boundaries for variousfunctions (e.g. local government, DistrictPolicing Areas etc.) are consistent. In therural development domain by way ofexample, it has been suggested throughthe soundings process that the futurearrangements for LEADER groups couldalso aim to fit within this concept of ‘co-terminosity’.

Update of the RegionalDevelopment Strategy (RDS)8.36 As highlighted in Section II, theRDS 2025 dedicates an entire chapter(Chapter 8) to the strategic importance ofthe rural economy in Northern Ireland.DRD are currently embarking on an updateor ‘focused assessment’ of the RDSinvolving consultation across Government(including local government). It isimportant to highlight that this is currentlynot perceived by DRD to be a fundamentalreview, rather an updating or ‘fine-tuningexercise’, but there is the scope toencompass major revisions in particularareas if they arise in due course. Theforward timetable for this envisages anamended RDS around March 2006.

81


8.37 As detailed previously, it is our viewthat, it is not possible to divorce a reviewof future rural policy from the over-archingspatial planning process for NI as a whole.Indeed DRD view the update process as apotential opportunity for re-launching of theRDS, which has further potential toreinforce its position as the primaryoverarching strategy for NI as a region.This suggests that in the ‘hierarchy’ ofstrategic planning within Government in NIthat this document could have greaterprimacy as the ‘over-arching’ vision for NIwith other cross-cutting strategies andplans with a shorter time span (e.g.Priorities and Budgets/PfG) and sectoralstrategies (such as rural developmentpolicy) sitting beneath it. As such there isa need for the DARD Review teamoverseeing this study to engage with theupdate process of the RDS to ensure thatthe rural chapter of the revised RDS fullyencompasses the needs of rural areas asreflected in this study. This is importantnot just in terms of ‘updating the RDSdocument’ but also in terms of puttingfuture rural policy on a much broaderregional development platform, with therelated potential to link into wider sourcesof regional funding. In addition, the viewsand opinions of any future Assembly willclearly be fundamental to this process.

Aspirations and views onthe way forward8.38 Before progressing to considerprinciples or criteria that should beconsidered, in articulating a future ruralpolicy, it is important to reflect on the keyviews of stakeholders from the soundingsprocess. A sample of these views isillustrated in Figure 8.4. In broad termsmany of the points raised link back toissues raised within earlier sections of thereport (particularly Section VI). Forexample the comments illustrate a cleardesire for an over-arching strategicapproach and a simplification of thedelivery and administration of ruralsupport. There is also a desire for theconcept of subsidiarity to be maintained,reflecting some of the perceivedsuccesses around the early ABSAGs andLEADER. Furthermore they also illustrate

Figure 8.4: Aspirations and Views on Future Directions

A single programme for rural policy is welcome…it should offer scope for related simplifications tothe administration of funding.

Rural proofing is a weak instrument…if rural proofing were a success then there would not be aneed for a separate rural policy in a region with a population of 1.5 million.

Any modulation monies coming into the Single Rural Programme should be ring fenced for supportfor farm households….whilst any additional funds should be used for wider agri-rural supportmeasures.

Regional development funds [under Cohesion funds] should be earmarked for rural developmentmeasures (non agricultural)…in particular focusing on the health and well-being of rural areas.

Despite efforts, there has been a fragmented approach to rural development to date…thedevelopment of a coherent and effective rural policy will require a cross departmental approach.

There is a need to change mindsets and for people to realise that not everything rural is theresponsibility of DARD. There is a clear need for a more joined up approach byGovernment…given the myriad of Departments and agencies which have an interest in rural areasit is essential that rural policy is co-ordinated.

Whatever recommendations are made for the future of rural policy they should offer flexibility andbe able to accommodate change – particularly in view of over-arching policy developments such asthe RPA and update of the RDS.

If rural areas are to benefit equally as part of New TSN then there is a need to set targets for thepercentage of overall funding under rural development programmes to focus on, for example,women as they are a core component of rural community life.

There is a need to ensure rural funding reflects the fact that public service provision in ruralcommunities can be more costly than in urban areas.

There is a need to recognise opportunities/ assets in rural NI…an ‘asset based’ model shoulddrive future rural policy.

There is a strong need to separate policy from delivery – the two should be at ‘arms length’.

Future structures need to maintain the concept of subsidiarity, however this needs to be balancedwith taking the opportunity for simplification of delivery, which a single EU fund offers.

We have an opportunity now, with the emerging EU policy directions, to have a radical think abouthow we develop and implement rural policy…a wide range of options should be on the table fordiscussion and debate.

The policy should account for the cross-border perspective. Mechanisms should be explored totackle the particular issues around the border region that involves genuine inter-Governmentalresourcing and implementation. An All Ireland Rural Forum should be established that sharesexperiences and lifts best practice to inform future actions

A rural white paper is the only effective means to ensure proper integration across Govt. DARD’srole should be to sell this concept to the centre and the UK level Regional aid should be bid forfrom the UK to ensure that any agreed actions agreed within a Rural white paper areimplemented, over and above EU funds from the single RD fund.

Any new policy for rural development should not simply react to local needs as demonstratedthrough a competitive grant process, but should have at its heart a strategic programme to meetthe diverse needs of rural society.

The large number of available measures may include some with partly contradictory objectives,but it allows Member States/regions to select a package adjusted to their needs. A realisticprecise definition and quantification of programme objectives, a careful selection of measuresand a precise targeting of beneficiaries is a pre-condition for successful programmes. A lack oftargeting can increase the danger of deadweight, a focusing of resources may increaseprogramme effectiveness.

The call for a rural white paper is more a sound bite…a call for a framework of a clear andintegrated strategy.

82


the tension between the farm and non-farm sectors, which links back to an issueidentified in Section VI about the extent towhich rural development activity thus farhas failed to fully engage the farmingcommunity. A final linkage is in terms ofthe desire for an ‘asset-based’ approach,linking back to aspects of the rationale forintervention presented in Section V.

Principles or criteria for afuture rural policy8.39 Table 8.1 sets out some criteria orprinciples that should inform the debateabout the way forward for discussion andreview with the Steering Group/RuralStakeholders Forum. These principlesagain draw on various issues and prioritieshighlighted in previous chapters.

Towards a new approach torural policy?8.40 Drawing on these principles, thissub-section outlines a way forward for ruraldevelopment by examining overarchingpolicy objectives and considering thestructures needed for effective delivery.However, before discussing this it is usefulto reflect on the rationale for interventionand the needs of rural areas as, inaccordance with the steps set out in theguide to policy making, this frames theneed and context for policy development2.

The rationale for intervention8.41 In examining the rationale forintervention in rural areas, there are threemain justifications, linking back to thearguments presented in Section V. First,given the problems of high levels ofdeprivation and unemployment and theover-dependence on agriculture andmanufacturing, rationale rests onredistribution/ social inclusion andeconomic/ labour market grounds.However, while justification can be centredon facilitating and promoting therestructuring of the wider rural economyand providing support to small

Table 8.1: Principles/ criteria for a future policy

P ELPICNIR D FONOITPIRCSE P SELPICNIR

/larotces-itluMpUdenioJhcaorppA

arofdeenasierehT citsiloh pu-deniojrofdeenehtgnisingocer,evitcepsreplarurehtnogniraebaevahtahtstseretnicigetartsyekrehtognicarbme,tnemnrevoG

ehtnihtiwyciloplarurerutufafotifehtsisihtotyeK.INfoyteicosdnaymonoceINnitnemnrevoGnihtiwgninnalpcigetartsfo’yhcrareih‘ SDRdehcnual-erehterehw,

noigerasaINrofnoisivllarevoehtsa’ycamirp‘gnivahsadeviecrepebdluoc5202.5202litnu

noitarapeSycilopneewteb

yrevileddnalarurrof

tnempoleved

ehtybdemrofnidna)IIVnoitceSnideliatedsa(erehwesleecitcarpmorfgninraeLodregnolonnacetatsdesilartneceht‘tahtnoitingocerasierehtetadotsnoitatlusnoc

dnatnempolevedycilopneewtebtilpsaroferisedasierehttceffenI.’llatitaebdluohsowteht.e.i–yreviled/noitatnemelpmi ’,htgnelsmra‘ yllartnecycilophtiw

lartnecotlanretxegnidiseryrevileddna)DRAD(tnemnrevoGnihtiwdenoitisopafonoitaercehtgnidulcnirettalehtottcepserhtiwtsixesnoitpofoegnarA.tnemnrevoG

fognirutcurtserdna’nwodtlem‘amorfdemrofebdluochcihw,ycnega/ydobwenehthtiwknilotytinutropponaebdluocerehtylevitanretlA.stnemegnarrayreviledgnitsixe

dednetxeriehterehwAPRehthguorhtegremeyamtahtserutcurts’licnuoc-repus‘nrutnI.ytivitcanoitarenegerlarurgnitnemelpmirofytilibisnopseraedulcnidluocsrewop

)spuorgREDAEL.g.e(serutcurtsgnitixefo’ytisonimret-oc‘rofepocsetaercdluocsiht.seiradnuobtnemnrevoglacolwenhtiw

/desaB-aerApUmottoB

hcaorppA

A hcaorppalairotirret ehtfodnaytisrevidlacolfonoitaicerppanarofepocsehtsreffohtiwgnikam-noisicedehtnisnoitutitsnidnaslaudividnilacolgnivlovnifoecnatropmi

reffodluocsihtniagA.saeralarurnisecivresdnasecruoserfoyreviledehtottcepser.APRehtmorfesirayamtahtsemoctuoehthtiwtifcigetartsarofepocs

pihsrentraPgnikroW

desabaera‘nahguorhtdeidobmeebdluowtahtspihsrentraplacolehtevobadnarevOlaruR.gnikrowpihsrentraprofdeenredaorbasierehtevobadeliated’hcaorppa

ehtdnaseitinummoclacolhtobfotnemtimmoccitsaisuhtneehtseriuqertnempolevedehtnognidliuB.mehtnoputcapmisnoisicedesohwseicnega/stnemtrapeDfoegnarBGniseigetartSytinummoCehtdnuorasessecorpeht.g.e(erehweslemorfsnossel

rofdeenasiereht)IIVnoitceSnideliated ’nwod-pot‘dna’pu-mottob‘ehtfognigdirbsehcaorppa evitceffesisihtotyeK. sknil’lacitrev‘ pihsrentrapdnagnikrowten,

.smsinahcemyreviledlacol/lanoigerdnatnemnrevoGlartneCneewtebstnemegnarradnalgnEniycnegAedisyrtnuoCehtybdeussiecnadiugehtfostcepsanowarddluocsihT

.)ediuGecitcarPdooGa–paGehtgnigdirB(

-ecnedivEdesaB

ytivitcatnempolevedlarurtahtetadothcraeserehthguorhttnemeergadaorbasierehTehtybdetabrecaxeneebsahhcihw,deldnamedtondelgnidnufylegralneebsah

spagyllaitnetopdnanoitacilpud,spalrevootdelsahsihT.smaertsgnidnuffo’arohtelp‘‘ebdluohsdrawrofgnivomelpicnirpyekaerutufehtroF.noisivorpni ’desab-ecnedive

gnikamycilop asreffoylevitceffeRDRwenehT.ytivitcahcraesertsuborybdemrofnietairporppafonoitcelesehtdna,snoiger/setatsrebmeMrofserusaem43fo’unem‘

.e.i(deendesitiroirpnodesabebdluohs,3102otpugniylppa,INrofserusaemserusaeMemostahtdna,ylppatonyamserusaeM43llatahtweivehthtiwyllaitnetop

.)srehtonahtstnetxeresselroretaergotylppalliw

noitacifilpmiS roferisedgnortsasetacidnietadothcraeserehT ycarcuaerubdnaytixelpmocdecuderhguorhtdelbanesihtsdrawotkrowotepocselbaredisnocsierehT.yciloplarurerutufaniotdeddA.RDRwenehtfoserusaem43lladnuflliwhcihwFDRAEelgnisafonoitaerceht

dnaytiralcdesaercnirofepocssreffoyrevileddnaycilopfonoitarapeslaitnetopehtsiht.noitacifilpmis

/noitavonnIecitcarPtseB

aroferisedasierehtyciloplarurahtiwdrawrofgnivomnI wenstcepsertahterutlucgnikatksirdnasaedi nihtiwticilpmI.skrowemarfytilibatnuocca/ytiborpdetpeccanihtiw

larurelbaniatsusdnadetargetnifosehcaorppawentsetotytinutroppoehteblliwsiht.sisabrediwanoecitcarptsebdnaycilopmorfgninrael,tnempoleved

/ytilauqE57noitceS

gnidliub-ecaepdnasnoitalerytinummocehtevobadnarevotahtdethgilhgihVInoitceSfoegnellahcredaorbhcumehtsiereht,saeralarurnisegnellahc ytisrevidgnigaruocne

saeralarurniytinutroppofoytilauqedna NCRybnekatrednuhcraeserehtnogniwarD.niseitinummoclarurnihtiwtnediveseussicificepseraerehtVInoitceSnidetneserpgnivomniylgnidroccA.INninoitalsigel57noitceSehtfoseirogetacsuoiravfosmretehtfolufdnimebdluohsyciloplarurerutufehttahtebdluohselpicnirpyekadrawrof

niytinutroppofoytilauqefonoitomorpehtnosisahpmeehthtiw,noitalsigel57noitceS.saeralarur

2 OFMDFM (2004) A Practical Guide to Policy Making in NorthernIreland

83


businesses, the social inclusion rationaleis narrower and needs to focus on specificmarginal or peripheral rural areas. In thisregard it is important to note that SectionIV highlights that there is a degree of ruralinsensitivity in capturing rural povertyusing the Noble Deprivation Index.

8.42 Secondly, there is justification forintervention in the rural environment. Thisis based on improving efficiency andrealising the economic benefits that canbe derived from the landscape and alsoensuring that the vital rural environmentalresources are properly managed andsustained. Thirdly, the rationale forintervention on social/ community groundshas now shifted from establishingcommunity infrastructure to the importantrole of maintenance and enablement.Together, therefore, the environmental andsocial/ community arguments havebroadened the rationale for interventionacross rural areas of Northern Ireland.

Framing the rural developmentpolicy context8.43 On the basis of the rationale forintervention, therefore, the broadcomponents of rural policy can be set outas representing the interrelationshipbetween social, economic andenvironmental factors but also includingimportant specific sub-components relatedto ‘cultural’ and ‘agriculture and forestry’.This is set out in Figure 8.5.

8.44 The model as represented is oversimplistic but nevertheless provides auseful means of visualising the complexityassociated with ‘rural policy’. Whileidentifying the interaction between thedifferent economic, social andenvironmental factors, rural policyrecognises the unique role that agricultureplays in the rural economy alongside otheractivity. It is this understanding of the roleof agriculture and other activity that availsof natural resources that is one of thecharacteristics that distinguishes ruraldevelopment policy from traditionaleconomic development or regenerationpolicy.

8.45 In addition, there is a need torecognise that the various components ofrural policy are not static but dynamic andchanging in their relative importance andhow they interact with each other. On footof this assessment, rural developmentpolicy can be defined in the followingterms:

‘The process through which economic,social and community, environmental andcultural resources of rural areas areorganised and sustained in order toachieve the longterm viability of ruralcommunities and provide benefits for widersociety.’

8.46 This definition seeks to reflectmany of the concepts and ideas that havearisen during the course of our ‘sounding’process and from the various discussionsacross a wide spectrum of interests. Itbroadly reflects much of the currentthinking and interest being taken in theterm ‘sustainable communities’. As such,sustainable communities are really about arobust and strong economy, theassociated employment opportunities, andgood quality services associated withschools and hospitals, public transport, ahealthy and safe environment and betteruse of land. Other considerations includethe promotion of sustainable agriculturewith a thriving community and recognitionof the importance of ‘abundant wildlife’.

8.47 It also includes considerationsassociated with the built environment,around housing, better design andsustainable construction. Lastly, thedefinition seeks to embrace the culturaldimensions associated with diversity, avibrant and creative local culture thatembraces ethnic minorities and othersthrough encouraging pride in thecommunity and cohesion withincommunities. It is about a ‘sense of placeor belonging’ linked to the wider regionaland national community within the EC andacross the UK and the island of Ireland.

8.48 Sustainable communities are atthe heart of the inter-relationship betweensocial, economic and environmentalfactors as shown in Figure 8.6.Sustainable communities are, among otherthings, about individuals and groupswishing to participate fully in dynamiccommunities in both the short, mediumand longer terms.

8.49 There is generally recognition thatthe problems associated withneighbourhoods (whether rural or urban)are often reflections of wider social andeconomic drivers. There is also theconcern that environmental factors havenot received enough attention in terms ofthe fundamental requirement for cleanwater, soil and air and ensuring that newdevelopment is aggressively resourceefficient.

Figure 8.5: Towards a new approach to rural policy?

Agricultureand

Forestry

Cultural

EconomicSocial

and Community

Environmental

Ruralpolicy

Drivers

NI/LocalRegional/

All Ireland

International/EU/

National

84


8.50 Having set out the rationale,definitions of rural development, theanalysis of economic, environmental andsocial/ cultural conditions it is thenpossible to consider the focus or potentialfuture direction of rural policy.

Understanding the needs ofrural areas8.51 Briefly summarising the baselineposition in Northern Ireland set out inSection IV and Appendix E, it is evidentthat while experiencing relatively highlevels of employment, the rural economy isunfavourably structured and has a numberof main underlying weaknesses. The ruraleconomy is reliant on the public sector,manufacturing and agriculture and facesproblems attracting inward investment.Rural areas also have less favourablelabour markets, low economic activityrates, poorer educational attainment and alow concentration of tourism spend.

8.52 Although rural areas have a fastergrowing working age population, theyexperience higher levels longer-termunemployment, combined with low levelsof job density than urban areas. However,while this is true of rural areas in general,a distinction in rural areas can be madewith the more peripheral areas that havelower economic activity rates, sloweremployment growth and associated higherlevels of unemployment. Furthermore,rural areas also experience a lack of

infrastructure and access to services buthave established a healthy communityinfrastructure and ‘stock’ of social capitaldeveloped through communitydevelopment activities. Finally it isimportant to highlight that there areparticular issues and challenges evident inrural areas in building a society thatembraces diversity and extends equality ofopportunity to various categories of theSection 75 Act.

8.53 With regard to environmentalconditions, Northern Ireland possesses arich variety of scenic countryside thatprovides a valuable contribution to thelocal economy. However, with increaseddevelopment and land management, therural environment is under pressure mostnotably in the areas of biodiversity,resource protection, natural landscapesand the built heritage.

8.54 From analysing the baseline lineposition it is clear that rural NorthernIreland has a complex range of economic,social and environmental needs but alsopossesses a mix of resources andopportunities. Addressing the needs andutilising the resources and potentialwithin a framework of sustainabledevelopment is the key objective for ruralpolicy.

Reflecting on past successesand failures8.55 Finally, in considering a new policyapproach it is important to reflect on thepast successes and failures in themanagement and delivery of ruraldevelopment in Northern Ireland.Highlighting the main points from SectionVI, it is evident from mid-term evaluationactivity that the current programmingperiod (2000–2006) did experience initialdifficulties establishing real momentum interms of both approvals and expenditure.However more recent updates frommonitoring committee data suggests thatthe position has moved on from the timeof the mid-term evaluation activity withactivity levels broadly on target. Inaddition during both programming periodsconsiderable progress has been made interms of initial ‘animation’, capacitybuilding and establishing a communityinfrastructure in rural areas.

8.56 With regard to policy and strategy,activity has largely been funding led andcomplicated delivery structures havecreated confusion for customers andperceived inefficiencies at an overall level.Building on these successes andaddressing the problems will be central todeveloping a new approach to ruraldevelopment.

Components of a future ruralpolicy and strategic deliveryoptions8.57 Drawing on the findings of theprevious chapters and in particular theprinciples and criteria for a future ruralpolicy set out earlier in this section, it ispossible to set out the broad ‘strands’ fora future integrated rural policy (in activityterms). These strands when linked withdelivery considerations provide the basisfor a number of strategic options for theway forward. These strands and strategicoptions are set out below along with adiscussion about the relative merits ofeach in delivering against the specifiedprinciples.

8.58 In content terms it is possible todistinguish between three broad types of

Figure 8.6: Strategic Policy Goals

EconomicSocial

and Community

Environmental

SustainableCommunities

85


activity in a future rural policy, which linkback to the identified needs in Section IV(see Figure 8.7). The first relates toactivities closely allied to the land(agriculture, forestry, and landmanagement including agri-environmentactivities); the second relates to activitiesto bring about rural regeneration (e.g.diversification of rural economies, ruraltourism, natural heritage of rural areas,and actions to develop the social/ culturalfabric of rural areas); the third relates tothe much broader agenda of access toservices in rural areas (e.g. health,education including higher and furthereducation, transport and utilities).

The land8.59 Building on the needs (Section IV)and best practice identified in Section VIIthe activity in the agricultural arena couldspecifically focus on restructuring andaddressing the needs of the farm and landbased sectors. The experience fromelsewhere and particularly New Zealanddemonstrates that when agriculturalmarkets are deregulated, this canstimulate a period of transition,restructuring and streamlining in primaryproduction. This has also been describedas a period to facilitate ‘structuralchange’ in the agricultural sector. In thiscontext, activities based on farmmanagement, farm relief and advisoryservices, developing human resources,increasing business development skills,improving and developing local food ‘co-operatives’ and promoting branding and

helping farmers to adapt to changes in EUfunding are likely to be a key part of thestrategy.

8.60 However, working more closely onthe basis of identified need and thediversity of rural areas, it is proposed thattargeting be continued or introduced insome cases, to apply a more focussedapproach and concentrate on supportingthe farm sector to overcome the barriersto the efficient functioning of markets.

8.61 With regard to forestryencouraging a more diverse and activeforestry sector in NI, supporting producergroups and enhancing the economic valueof forests would seem to be key areas. Inaddition territorial targeting could beintroduced to focus on those locations,which are more appropriate fordevelopment from an environmental/biodiversity perspective. This should beundertaken with a full consideration of thepotential environmental and associatednatural habitat benefits that could accrue.In this context there was reference duringthe course of the ‘soundings’ exercise tothe need for an independent environmentalbody to oversee the implementation of theenvironmental legislation. This is a mattermore related directly to environmentalpolicy although contextually relevant. Thisis a key area for inter-departmental co-ordination, in particular for DARD to workclosely with DoE and other environmentalorganisations in the development of theseactivities.

8.62 To assist the targeting of supportfor agriculture and forestry activities atiered definition of rural areas could beapplied. For instance, for those measureswhich are addressing broad sectoralissues such as overcoming barriers to theefficient functioning of markets, a widerdefinition of rural could be moreappropriate; that is, those areas outsidethe Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan, DerryUrban Area and the larger towns with apopulation of 18,000 or more. However,for those measures which are addressingmore local or territorial issues such asareas of environmental/biodiversity orsocial need, a narrower definition of ruralareas is appropriate; that is, rural areasdefined as settlements with populations ofless than 4,500 inhabitants and theirhinterlands. With regard to addressingsocial need, this definition will provide agreater focus on the more dispersedpopulation areas and the marginal ruralwards. Where appropriate, a ‘bottom-up’approach centred on the ‘LEADER method’should be applied, particularly when it isimportant to draw together consumers,producers and environmental stakeholdersfor local actions.

8.63 Given the changes in agricultureand the importance of promoting thesustainability of the environment, the landmanagement activities could focus onNATURA 2000 payments, afforestation,and agri-environment and animal welfareinitiatives. These activities could beaddressed and implemented on a tieredbasis applying different definitions of ruralwhere appropriate. For specific activities orareas of particular need, the LEADERprinciples could be adopted with a view todeveloping a locally areas based approach.Again, linkages and co-ordination with DoEand other environmental organisations willbe central to implementation of theseactivities. This broadly represents what wehave called ‘Strand A’.

Rural regeneration8.64 The second strand (‘Strand B’)within a future rural policy relates to ruralregeneration. This should focus oninitiatives that diversify the rural economy,

Figure 8.7: Overview of Strands

STRAND A

“LAND”

Single Integrated Rural Policy

STRAND B

“RURALREGENERATION”

STRAND C

“ACCESS TOSERVICES”

86


for instance rural enterprise/ micro-business development, managing andupgrading the natural heritage, developingrural tourism, and village renovation anddevelopment and conservation, andupgrading the (non-farmed) rural heritage.In addition this area should encompass afocus on the development (andmaintenance) of the social and culturalfabric of rural areas as a key aspect ofrural regeneration. With regard to targetingsupport a focused local area basedpartnership approach (involving key public,private and voluntary/ communitystakeholders) centred on theimplementation of the broad LEADERprinciples should be considered. Inaddition to provide a greater focus on themore dispersed population areas and themarginal rural wards, the classification ofrural areas under this component could bedefined as settlements with populations ofless than 4,500 inhabitants and theirhinterlands. Within this component thereshould also be opportunity, whereappropriate, to develop local cross-borderinitiatives and establish further cross-border linkages and networks.

Access to services8.65 The third strand (‘Strand C’) of thefuture rural policy relates to access toservices in rural areas (e.g. health,education including higher and furthereducation, transport and utilities). The keyissue here is to ensure that an influencingrole is brought to bear on otherGovernment Departments to enhance theaccess to these services in rural areas. Afurther key activity could be to for example,build on and develop the concept ofcommunity halls (as detailed in Section IV)as an affordable and centralised means ofphysical service provision in rural areas.Adopting a community developmentapproach to the delivery of some aspectsof these services could also be a moreaffordable means of service delivery inrural areas where the critical mass forcost-effective statutory service provision isnot evident. In terms of targeting, the mainfocus here should be on the moreperipheral and isolated areas, reflecting anarrower definition of rural (i.e.

settlements with populations of less than4,500 inhabitants and their hinterlands).

8.66 Given this potential distinction,different implementation or deliveryresponses could be devised for the threedifferent strands of activity within thesingle integrated vision for rural areas setout previously. Importantly the debatewithin this study has broadly confirmedthat DARD should co-ordinate and lead onan integrated rural development policy.However building on the findings in SectionVI it is clear that there is a strong desirefor separation between policy and deliveryset within a drive for reduced complexity.At one end of the spectrum this couldleave DARD (as is the case in GB) with apolicy function only with delivery acrossthe three strands detailed above externalto DARD. At the other end of the spectrumDARD would have both a policy anddelivery role across all the three activityareas specified above. However the extentto which this is practically feasible is a keypoint in that it would necessitate thatDARD would have delivery responsibility (orat minimum significant influence ondelivery) for health, education, transportand utilities services in rural areas. Giventhat this is unlikely to be feasible the otherdelivery options are likely to involve somepartial separation of delivery from policyacross the three strands.

8.67 In reflecting on the three strands(A, B and C) as described above it ispossible to distinguish the position thatDARD could have in relation to theactivities within the three strands.Activities within Strand A – The Land – aredetermined by legislation and are all coreactivities, currently undertaken by DARD.Thus the DARD position here is to fulfiltheir current legislative remit. The activitiesunder Strand B – Rural Regeneration –represent an area where DARD is currentlycentral to developing policy, in partnershipwith a range of other organisations in boththe public and private sector. In effectlooking forward DARD could maintain alead policy position with respect to ruralregeneration although clearly in the contextof maintaining high levels of partnership

with other relevant organisations. Finally,the activities in Strand C – Access toServices – (which include services such ashealth, education, transport and utilities)are not activities where DARD currentlyplays a central policy development ordelivery role. As such the position of DARDwith respect to Strand C will be one ofinfluence to help shape the policies ofother Departments and agencies to assistin bringing about ‘quality of life’ benefits inrural areas.

Option 18.68 Option 1 is set out in Figure 8.8complete with component strands, andrelated activities, delivery modes, fundingstreams and linkages. Essentially itinvolves a partial approach to theseparation of policy and delivery, with theview that the DARD role moves from a‘core’ position, through a ‘partnering’position to an ‘influencing’ position vis-à-vis the three strands. In effect underStrand A DARD would both set policy andbe responsible for delivery. Under Strand BDARD would set policy in partnership withother key Departments and Agencies anddelivery would reside in an external singleintegrated delivery body formed from a‘meltdown’ and reformation of existingdelivery capability for instance within andexternal to DARD. Under Strand C DARD’srole would be an influencing one, toinfluence and shape policies of otherDepartments/ agencies to bring aboutquality of life benefits in rural areasthrough enhanced access to services. Thedelivery mode could take the form ofDepartmental action plans potentiallycentrally co-ordinated and monitored byDARD (e.g. with the support of the RuralProofing Unit). The Rural StakeholdersForum would remain as a key advisory andsteering group with respect to theimplementation of the rural policy.

8.69 There is a need in this context tocomment on the role of the singleintegrated delivery body, with respect toOption 1. In effect it is envisaged asdetailed above that this could be formedfrom a ‘meltdown and re-formation’ ofexisting rural regeneration structures

87


internal to DARD (i.e. RDD) and external toDARD. This body could offer scope forsimplification and increased efficiencies,with the potential to streamline sub-regional administrative systems for ruralregeneration through collation and supportat a single point, in turn reporting toDARD. While it is not envisaged that thebody would have an extensive policyfunction, there is a clear opportunity forsuch a body to have an input into policy(based on their delivery experience) and toprovide a ‘challenge’ role to Government.

8.70 In addition there is the potential forsuch a body (again based on deliveryexperience) to provide ‘market intelligence’on rural change, thus facilitating anongoing ‘evidenced-based’ approach.Finally building on the ‘best practice’detailed in Section VII, there is anopportunity for a single integrated deliverybody to act as the ‘vertical bridgingmachinery’ between a ‘top-down’ and‘bottom-up approach, which is key toachieving the overall vision.

8.71 It is not within the Terms ofReference for this study to conclude onwhere the component parts of the existingexternal infrastructure (e.g. RDC and RCN)with respect to rural regeneration would fitwithin the framework of Option 1. That saidhowever, there is an opportunity for theseorganisations to position themselvesaccordingly, in view of their owncapabilities and priorities and the strategicfocus of the integrated vision, which isdesired by all. For instance the RDC clearlyhas delivery and research capability ofrelevance to the role of the singleintegrated delivery body and as detailed inSection VI it has more recently developeda policy focus (of relevance to the‘feedback’ into policy that the singleintegrated delivery body could provide).RCN, as a membership basedorganisation, is distinct from the RDC, andclearly has delivery capability of relevanceto tackling quality of life issues in ruralareas (including areas of weak communityinfrastructure) and a policy/lobbyingcapability in relation to the same.

Figure 8.8: Option 1

DRADP NOITISO

( SIV -A- SIV

YTIVITCA )

C‘ ERO ’ P‘ GNIRENTRA ’ I‘ GNICNEULFN ’

ADNARTS BDNARTS CDNARTS

ytivitcAnoitpircseD

dnanoitanalpxE

DRADfonoitisop

nihtiwseitivitcAeht–AdnartS

era–dnaLybdenimreteddnanoitalsigel

erocllaera,seitivitca

yltnerrucybnekatrednuehtsuhT.DRADerehelorDRADriehtliflufotsi

tnerructimerevitalsigel

–BdnartSrednuseitivitcaehTtneserper–noitarenegeRlaruRyltnerrucsiDRADerehwaerana

ni,ycilopgnipolevedotlartnecrehtofoegnarahtiwpihsrentrap

cilbupehthtobnisnoitasinagrotceffenI.rotcesetavirpdnadluocDRADdrawrofgnikool

htiwelorycilopdaelaniatniamtubnoitarenegerlarurottcepser

fotxetnocehtniylraelcfoslevelhgihgniniatniam

tnavelerrehtohtiwpihsrentrapsnoitasinagro

–CdnartSniseitivitcaehThcihw(–secivreSotsseccA

,htlaehsahcussecivresedulcnidnatropsnart,noitacude

erehwseitivitcatonera)seitilitulartnecasyalpyltnerrucDRADyreviledrotnempolevedycilop

fonoitisopehthcussA.elorCdnartSottcepserhtiwDRAD

epahsotecneulfnifoenoeblliwstnemtrapeDrehtofoseicilop

tuobagnirbotseicnegadnalarurnistifeneb’efilfoytilauq‘

.saera

ytivitcAstnenopmoC

erutlucirgA•yrtseroF•

dnaL•tnemeganam

-irgA•tnemnorivne

larutaN•.g.e(egatireh0002ARUTAN

)setis

larurfonoitacifisreviD•noitarenegerlarur/seimonoce

msiruotlaruR•larurfocirbaflarutluc/laicoS•

ytinummoc.e.i(seitinummocytinummoc,tnempoleved

foesnes’/ytitnedi,snoitalerytinummoclarur,’ecalp

)skrowtenegatirehlarutanfonoitomorP•

cimonocerofsaeralarurfosesopruptnempoleved

yekehtsisecivreSotsseccA:gnidulcnidnartssihtfoemeht

htlaeH•dnaEHgnidulcni(noitacudE•

)EFtropsnarT•

)retaw.g.e(seitilitU•

yrevileDedoM

.e.i(lanretnI)DRAD

otydoByrevileDelgniS(lanretxErebmunllamsybdenniprednueb

.)spuorGdohteMREDAELfodemrofebotydobyreviledelgniS

-erdnanwodtlem‘amorfserutcurtsgnitsixefonoitamrofdna)DDR.e.i(DRADotlanretni

.DRADotlanretxe

fomrofehtekatdluoCsnalpnoitcalatnemtrapeD

dnadetanidro-ocyllartnecyllaitnetop(DRADybderotinom

)??tinUgnifoorPlaruReht

gnidnuFsmaertS

fo2dna1sixARDReht

maertsniaMsdnuf

1noitcesbuS(RDRehtfo3sixA-bustnetxeresselaotdna

???IIIecaeP)3noitces??gerretnI

dnalerIrofdnuFlanoitanretnIsdnufmaertsniaM

latnemtrapeDgnitsixE•sdnufmaertsniam/stegduB

??sdiB•noitcesbus(RDRehtfo3sixA•

tnetxeresselaotdna2)3noitcesbus

:otskniL DRD•yrotalugeR()evitcepsrep

evitatneserpeR•dnalarutlucirgalatnemnorivne

.stseretni

cimonocE(INtsevnI/ITED•)msiruoTdnatnempoleveD•

)egatireH(SHE•)gninnalP(EoD•

ytinummoC(DSD•)tnempoleveD

ytinummoC(MFD/MFO•)snoitaleR

SP&SSHD•)tropsnarT(DRD•

LED•ED•

Rural Stakeholders ForumIntegrated Rural Development Policy

(Sitting within the context of the PfG and RDS)

88



DRADP NOITISO

( SIV -A- SIV

YTIVITCA )



ytivitcAnoitpircseD

dnanoitanalpxE

DRADfonoitisop


















.saera

ytivitcAstnenopmoC


dnaL•tnemeganam

-irgA•tnemnorivne


)setis









)EFtropsnarT•


yrevileDedoM

.e.i(lanretnI)DRAD

yrevileDlanoigeR6-5(lanretxE-oc‘rofepocsgnireffoseidoB-repuserutufhtiw’ytisonimretmorfgnigremeserutcurtslicnuoc

ebdluowesehtniagA.)APRehtREDAELehtybdenniprednu

.spuorGdohteM

fomrofehtekatdluoCsnalpnoitcalatnemtrapeD

dnadetanidro-ocyllartnecyllaitnetop(DRADybderotinom

)??tinUgnifoorPlaruReht

gnidnuFsmaertS

fo2dna1sixARDReht

maertsniaMsdnuf









.stseretni






LED•ED•

Option 28.72 Option 2 is essentially a variationof the delivery mode of Strand B. Ratherthan a single integrated delivery body asthe delivery mode for Strand B, there is anopportunity to move to 5–6 regionaldelivery bodies offering scope for ‘co-terminosity’ with any future super-councilstructures emerging from the RPA. This isfeasible particularly when much of theactivity within Strand B is already ‘mooted’within the RPA as activity that could bepart of the extended powers of localauthorities. Alternatively this optionpotentially could be a progression fromOption 1, in timing terms, which with theview that the single integrated deliverybody could devolve functions over time tosuper-council structures. All other aspectsof Option 2 are identical to Option 1 asillustrated in Figure 8.10.

Option 38.73 Option 3 as set out in Figure 8.9represents a variation on delivery mode,but relative to Option 2 this change indelivery mode is applicable across allthree strands. In effect DARD wouldbecome an organisation with a policyfocus only, with delivery across all threestrands external to Government. Thusdelivery would reside within a larger singleintegrated delivery body (than proposedunder Option 1). The role of this bodywould extend to delivery of all activityunder Strand A and Strand B and co-ordinating/monitoring the actions of therelevant Departments and Agencies underStrand C.

8.74 Option 3 assumes one large singleintegrated delivery body across all threestrands. Clearly there could be a body foreach strand, which would be a sub-optionof Option 3. That said this is likely to be‘out with’ the trend in the RPA to reducethe number of NDPB’s in Northern Ireland.The creation of a single integrated deliverybody related to Strand B as proposedwithin Option 1 or in relation to all threestrands as proposed Option 3, is anattempt to bring simplification and thus asthe potential to be more consistent withthis issue within the RPA.



89


8.75 It is not within the scope of thisstudy to conclude on a preferred option, asit is the intention that this study will beprogressed into DARD’s own reviewinvolving a formal consultation processthat will inform a decision about anypreferred option.

8.76 Nevertheless, it is appropriate tobriefly consider the relative merits of thethree options in view of the principles setout in Table 8.1.

8.77 All of the options to differingdegrees will deliver against all of theprinciples identified. In particular, all of theoptions will deliver a multi-sectoral-joinedapproach based on the integration of thethree strands. Furthermore all of theoptions involve some degree of separationbetween policy and delivery, however thisprinciple is most fully achieved by Option3, where the delivery of all 3 strandswould be external to Government. Linkedto this Option 3 potentially involves themost scope for simplification and reducedconfusion for client/ customers, becausedelivery of all activity would be centralisedwithin a single body. Option 2 with the 5–6delivery bodies as the delivery mode underStrand B (offering ‘co-terminosity’ withfuture super-councils) has the greatestscope for an area-based/bottom upapproach, although again the other optionsdo also offer some scope in this regard asthe LEADER method would underpin anyfuture activity across all three strandsfunded by the RDR.

8.78 The above options do,nevertheless, provide a basis for furtherdiscussion and consideration as theimplications of the new rural developmentregulation become clearer over the next sixmonths.

DRADP NOITISO

( SIV -A- SIV

YTIVITCA )



ytivitcAnoitpircseD

dnanoitanalpxE

DRADfonoitisop


















.saera

ytivitcAstnenopmoC


dnaL•tnemeganam

-irgA•tnemnorivne


)setis









)EFtropsnarT•


yrevileDedoM SDNARTSEERHTLLASSORCAEDOMYREVILEDDETARGETNIELGNIS

gnidnuFsmaertS

fo2dna1sixARDReht

maertsniaMsdnuf









.stseretni






LED•ED•




A1

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Study on Rural Policy Appendix A

BackgroundThe Invitation to Tender project title wastermed – DARD Review of Rural Policy. Theterms of reference state that the reviewrelates to a review of policy in relation torural development which is defined as ‘allresponsibilities currently embraced underthe core DARD Rural DevelopmentProgramme and other EU measures linkedto rural development (Pillar II)’.

There is complexity and some confusionaround the terminology associated with‘rural policy’. As such, set out in thispaper is our understanding as to what iscurrently ’embraced under the core DARDRural Development Programme and otherEU measures’.

A discussion around this is very worthwhileas it provides a useful starting point offurther research in respect of the Review.

Key questionsThis paper sets out:

• What is currently embraced underthe core DARD Rural DevelopmentProgramme? and

• What is included under other EUmeasures linked to RuralDevelopment (Pillar II)?

What is currently embracedunder the core DARD RuralDevelopment Programme?According to the ‘Northern Ireland RuralDevelopment Programme (RDP) Strategy2001–2006’ and the DARD paper on theSummary of EU Funded Assistance to theAgri-food, Forestry, Fisheries and RuralDevelopment Sectors 2000-2006, thefollowing schemes are embraced under theRDP:

• Measures funded under Leader+;• Measures funded under INTERREG

III (M1.4);• Measures funded under Peace II1;

and• Measures funded under BSP2.

What is included under other EUmeasures linked to RuralDevelopment (Pillar II)?According to the DARD paper on theSummary of EU Funded Assistance to theAgri-food, Forestry, Fisheries and RuralDevelopment Sectors 2000-2006 othermeasures linked to rural development(Pillar II) are:

• Other Measures funded underPeace II3;

• Other Measures funded underBSP4;

• Rural Development RegulationAccompanying Measures:-- Agri Environment Measures(ESA, CMS and OFS);- LFAs; and- Forestry (WGS and FWPS).

EU-funded schemes which fall outside theremit of the Rural Development orFisheries Regulations and are thereforenot linked to Rural Development (Pillar II)are:

• Suckler Cow Premium Scheme;• Beef Special Premium Scheme;• Extensification Payment Scheme;• Slaughter Premium Scheme;• Deseasonalisation Premium

Scheme;• Sheep Annual Premium Scheme;

and• Arable Area Payments Scheme.

Appendix A – Scoping Paper

ConclusionsOur conclusion at this stage is that ruralpolicy incorporates actions funded underthe following, as set out in Figure 1.2 inSection I of the report:

• Building Sustainable Prosperity(BSP);

• PEACE II;• Leader+;• INTERREG III; and• The Rural Development Regulation

Plan (Accompanying Measures) forNI 2000–2006. This includes:- Agri Environment Schemes(Environmentally Sensitive Areas[ESA], Countryside ManagementScheme [CMS] and OrganicFarming Scheme [OFS]);- Less Favoured Areas (LFA); and- Forestry (Woodland GrantScheme [WGS] and Farm WoodlandPremium Scheme [FWPS]).

A2

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Study on Rural Policy Appendix A

Endnotes

1 Measures funded under PEACE II withinthe DARD Rural Development Programme

• M2.9: Renovation anddevelopment of villages andprotection and conservation of therural heritage (A PeacefulEnvironment);

• M2.9 Renovation and developmentof villages and protection andconservation of the rural heritage(Broadening the Framework);

• M5.6: Agriculture and ruraldevelopment Cross-border co-operation (Cross-border CommunityDevelopment);

• M2.9 Renovation and developmentof villages and protection andconservation of the rural heritage(Developing Civic Society);

• M2.10: Encouragement for touristand craft activities (Local Identity,Heritage & Culture);

• M1.2b: Sustainable TourismDevelopment based on sharednatural and cultural resources(Natural Resource Rural Tourism);

• M2.9: Renovation anddevelopment of villages andprotection and conservation of therural heritage (Promoting SafeCommunities);

• M1.7: Diversification of agriculturalactivities and activities close toagriculture to provide multipleactivities or alternative incomes(Rural Employment OpportunitiesProgramme);

• M2.9: Renovation anddevelopment of villages andprotection and conservation of therural heritage (Rural MediationService);

• M1.10: Basic services for therural economy and population(Rural Retail Programme); and

• M2.9: Renovation anddevelopment of villages andprotection and conservation of therural heritage (Village HallsAdvisory Service).

2 Measures funded under BSP within theDARD Rural Development Programme

• M4.4 Setting up Farm Relief andFarm Management Service;

• M4.6 Basic Services for the RuralEconomy and Population;

• M4.7 Renovation and Developmentof Villages & Protection andConservation of the Rural Heritage;

• M4.8 Diversification of agriculturalactivities and activities close toagriculture to provide multipleactivities and alternative incomes;

• M4.9 Development andImprovement of Infrastructureconnected with the Development ofAgriculture;

• M4.10 Encouragement for Touristand Craft activities;

• M4.11 Protection of theenvironment in connection withagriculture, forestry and landscapeconservation as well as theimprovement of animal welfare;and

• M4.12 Financial Engineering.

3 Other Measures funded under PEACE IIlinked to Rural Development (Pillar II)

• M1.6: Training for farmers(Information CommunicationTechnology (ICT) for Agriculture)(Model Units) (Supplier GroupFacilitation);

• M1.7: Diversification of agriculturalactivities and activities close toagriculture to provide multipleactivities or alternative incomes(Obtaining AlternativeEmployment);

• M1.9: Investment in AgriculturalHoldings;

• M1.10: Basic services for the ruraleconomy and population(Information CommunicationTechnology (ICT) Development);

• M5.6: Agriculture and ruraldevelopment Cross-border co-operation (Cross-borderDiversification); and

• M5.7: Cross-border fishing andaquaculture co-operation.

4 Other Measures funded under BSPlinked to Rural Development (Pillar II)

• M4.1 Training• M4.2a Improving Processing &

Marketing of Agricultural Products(Processing and Marketing GrantScheme);

• M4.3 Forestry (WGS EstablishmentGrants) (WGS WoodlandImprovement Grant andSustainable Forestry OperationsGrant);

• M4.5 Marketing of QualityAgricultural Products (Marketing ofQuality Agricultural Products); and

• M4.13a – M4.13j FisheriesSchemes (Fishing VesselsDecommissioning Scheme), (SafetyEquipment Scheme), (Small scaleand coastal fishing grants), (Scrapand Build), (Marketing and Qualityon board fishing vessels),(Improvement of facilities at NIfishing ports), (Aquaculture),(Processing and marketing offreshwater and marine products),(Joint Marketing Initiative),(Collective operations by membersof the NI fishing industry).

B1

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Study on Rural Policy Appendix B

Appendix B: Bibliography

Anderson, D., Tyler, P., McCalion, T., Ayre, T. and Matthews, D. (2004) Business successin rural Northern Ireland. Rural Innovation and Research Partnership. Belfast: Queen’sUniversity Belfast.

Baldock, D., Beaufoy, G., Bennett, H., Dwyer, J., Lowe, P. and Ward, N. (2003) Europe’srural futures – The nature of rural development II: Rural development in an enlargingEuropean Union. Pan-European Research Report for WWF Europe/LUPG agencies.London: IEEP

Blackburn, S., Skerratt, S., Warren, M. and Errington, A. (2003) Rural communities andthe voluntary sector; A review of literature. Research Report to Defra, Department ofLand Use and Rural Management, Seale Hayne Campus. University Of Plymouth.

Cairns, E., Van Til, J. and Williamson, A. (2003) Social capital, collectivism –individualism and community background in Northern Ireland. University of Ulster,Coleraine: Centre for Voluntary Action Studies University of Ulster and Department ofUrban Studies, Rutgers University, New Jersey, USA.

Canadian Rural Information Service (2000) The OECD definition of ‘rural’ http://www.agr.ca

Central Community Relations Unit (CCRU) (1998) New Targeting Social Need, An agendafor targeting social need and promoting social inclusion in Northern Ireland. BelfastCCRU.

Chanan, G., West, A., Garrat, C. and Humm, J. (1999) Regeneration and sustainablecommunities, London: Community Development Foundation.

Countryside Agency (2002)‘The State of the Countryside 2002’ www.countryside.gov.uk/stateofthecountryside

Craig, G., Shucksmith, M. and Young-Smith, L. (2004) Rural community development inEurope.

Davis, J., Caskie, P., Gilbreath, G., and Wallace, M (1999) A Socio Economic Evaluationof the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance Scheme in Northern Ireland.

Department of Agriculture and Food (1999) Ensuring the future: A strategy for ruraldevelopment in Ireland. Department of Agriculture and Food.

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (2000) NI rural development regulationplan 2000-2006. Northern Ireland: Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (2001) Northern Ireland ruraldevelopment programme strategy 2001–2006. Northern Ireland: Department ofAgriculture and Rural Development.

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (2004) A Guide to Rural Proofing,considering the needs of rural areas and communities. Northern Ireland: Department ofAgriculture and Rural Development.

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (2004) Rural development programmean equality impact assessment, Final Report.

B2


Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2004) Rural strategy. London:HMSO.

Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions (2000) Accounting for nature– assessing habitats in the UK countryside. Department of the Environment Transportand the Regions Countryside Survey 2000.

Department of Finance and Personnel (1998) Partnership for Equality – theGovernment’s proposals for future legislation and policies on employment equality inNorthern Ireland. Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Northern Irelandby Command of Her Majesty.

Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (2004) Equalities andInequalities in Health and Social Care in NI: a statistical overview. Northern Ireland:Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Department for Regional Development (2001) Shaping our future: regional developmentstrategy for Northern Ireland 2025. Northern Ireland: Department for RegionalDevelopment.

Department for Regional Development (2004) Sustainable Development in theCountryside. Issues Paper. Department for Regional Development.

Department for Social Development (2004) Evaluation of Partners for Change:Government’s Strategy for Support of the Community and Voluntary Sector. NorthernIreland: Department for Social Development.

DTZ Pieda Consulting (2004) Mid term evaluation of LEADER+.

DTZ Pieda Consulting (2004) Mid term evaluation of Measures funded by the EAGGF.

Economic Development Strategy Review Steering Group (1999) Strategy 2010.

EUROPA (2001) Activities of the European Union.

European Commission (1988) The Future of Rural Society. European Commission.

European Commission (1999) Rural Development Regulation (No. 1257/99) EuropeanCommission.

European Commission (2004) New Rural Development Regulation (No. 490/2004).European Commission.

European Commission (2004) Third Cohesion Report – A new Partnership for Cohesion,Convergence Competitiveness Cooperation. European Commission.

European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture, (2000) CAP Reform: RuralDevelopment. European Commission.

European Rural Exchange (2002) Integrated Rural Development, Policy and Practice, Adiscussion paper by the European Rural Exchange. European Rural Exchange

B3


Fine, B. (1999) The Development State is Dead – Long Live Social capital? Developmentand Change 30(1):1-19; Growing ‘rural futures’ literature e.g. Moynagh, M. and R.Worsley (2003) ‘The State of the Countryside 2020’ – a report to the CountrysideAgency; and an as yet unpublished work for Defra by the ‘Rural Futures’ project team,The Futures Foundation and University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

Hart, M., Murray, M., Keane, M., and Smyth, M. (2000) Local Development in NorthernIreland – The Way Forward. Northern Irealnd: Northern Ireland Economic DevelopmentOffice.

Haskins, C (2003) Rural Delivery Review – A report on the delivery of governmentpolicies in rural England.

Hawe, P. and Shiell, A. (2000) Social capital and health promotion: a review, SocialScience and Medicine 51(6): 871–885.

Hodge, I (1997) The Rural White Papers in Great Britain, Journal of Environment Planningand Management, 40 (3), 375–376.

Housing Executive (1999) Places for People – A Rural Housing Policy Review. NorthernIreland: Housing Executive.

Housing Executive (2003) Delivering Rural Commitments. Northern Ireland: HousingExecutive.

International Fund for Ireland (2003) Annual Report and Accounts 2003. Republic OfIreland: International Fund for Ireland.

Keeble, D. E. et al (1992) Business Success in the Countryside; the Performance of theRural Economy – a report to the Dept of Environment, London: Dept of Environment.

Lowe, P. (1997) The British Rural White Papers: A Comparison and Critique, Journal ofEnvironment Planning and Management, 40 (3), 389-400.

Lowe, P. and Ward, N. (2001) New Labour, New Vision? Labour’s Rural White Paper,Political Quarterly vol.72(3) 386-390.

McDonagh, J. (2001) Renegotiating Rural Development in Ireland. Ashgate Press

Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Department of the Environment (1996)Rural England London: HMSO.

Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (2000) Our Countryside: the future. A fairdeal for rural England London: HMSO

Morrow,D (2004) ‘Community Development and Peace Building’ Speech to RCN SummerSchool, the Rural College, Draperstown, 19th May 2004

Moynagh, M. and Worsley, R. (2003) ‘The State of the Countryside 2020’ – a report tothe Countryside Agency.

NESC (1994) New Approaches to Rural Development.

B4


NIAO (2000) Report on the Rural Development Programme 1994-99

NISRA (2004) Final Report of the Inter-Departmental Urban–Rural Definition Group:Classification and Delineation of Settlements.

Northern Ireland Executive (2002) NI Programme for Government, Making a Difference2002–200. Northern Ireland Northern Ireland Executive.

OECD (1998) Best Practices in Local Development. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (2004) A Practical Guide to PolicyMaking in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland: Office of the First Minister and Deputy FirstMinister.

Performance and Innovation Unit (1999) Rural Economies, London: Stationery Office.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (2001) Ex-post evaluation of LEADER II

PricewaterhouseCoopers (2003) Ex-post evaluation of NI Rural Development Programme1994-99.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (2004) Valuing Our Environment: The Economic Impact of theNational Trust in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland: Report prepared for the NationalTrust.

Putnam, R. (2003) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton,NJ: Princetown University Press.

RDC (2002) A Picture of Rural Change 2002. Northern Ireland: Rural DevelopmentCouncil.

RDC (2003) A Picture of Rural Change 2003. Northern Ireland: Rural DevelopmentCouncil.

Robert, J. et al. (2001) Spatial Impacts of Community Policies and Costs of Non-Coordination, report to DG Regio.

Scottish Office (1995) Rural Scotland: People, Prosperity and Partnership. Edinburgh:HMSO

Scottish Office (1998) Towards a Development Strategy for Rural Scotland.

Scottish Office (1999) National Planning Policy Guideline NPPG15, Scottish Office

Shaw, R. (1997) The Rural White Paper in England: The origins, production andimmediate consequences of the white paper ‘Rural England’, Journal of EnvironmentPlanning and Management, 40 (3), 381-385.

Shortall, S., and Shucksmith, M., (2001) Community Development Journal 2001 Vol 36,No. 2, pp 122-134.

Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights’ (SACHR’s) (1997) Report onemployment equality.

B5


Summary of EU Funded Assistance to the Agri-food, Forestry, Fisheries and RuralDevelopment Sectors 2000-2006

The Countryside Agency (2004) The State of the Countryside Report

Tourism Associates (1999) Valuing our Environment – a study of the economic impact ofconserved landscapes and of the National Trust in the South West 1998. Exeter:National Trust.

University of Plymouth and University of Gloucestershire, ‘The Determinants of RuralEconomic Development’ report submitted to the Department for Environment, Food andRural Affairs, as yet unpublished.

Welsh Office (1996) A Working Countryside for Wales. London: HMSO.

www.europa.eu.int ‘The common agricultural policy – A policy evolving with the times’

www.ark.ac.uk/nilt - QUB and University of Ulster, Life and Times Survey website

Conference findings1996 - Cork Conference, ‘A living countryside’, November 1996, Cork (Ireland)

2003 - Salzburg Conference ‘Planting seeds for a wider Europe’, November 2003,Salzburg (Austria)

2004 - Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe, April 2004, Florence (Italy)

2004 - Rural Development Conference, June 2004, Westport (Ireland)

2004 - Cooperation Forum in Rural Development in an Enlarged Europe, June 2004,Cáceres (Spain)

C1

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Study on Rural Policy Appendix C

Appendix C: Issues Paper

1 Rural Development inNorthern Ireland1.1 What do you understand by theterm “rural development” and what in yourview should be embraced within the term?Please consider issues, and policies, asappropriate (See Footnote 1).

1.2 In your view, why shouldGovernment be involved in designing,managing and implementing a “ruraldevelopment policy”?

2 Looking back2.1 What in your view have been thesuccesses to date in respect of “ruraldevelopment policy” in Northern Ireland?Please explain the reasons behind yourjudgement.

2.2 What in your view have been thefailures to date in respect of “ruraldevelopment policy” in Northern Ireland?Please also give reasons.

2.3 Do you have any comments/opinions on the role of the EU (e.g.policies, funding, legislation) in relation torural development policy in NorthernIreland to date (i.e. up to the 2006spending round)? How important or nothas EU policy been, and why?

3 Where we are now?3.1 What are the main current ruraleconomic, environmental and social needsand opportunities facing Northern Ireland,in your opinion?

3.2 How effective is current ruraldevelopment policy in addressing theserural needs? Are there gaps and/oroverlaps? Are there problems in design ordelivery, goals or methods? Are the rightpeople involved in design and delivery? Inanswering this question, please explainyour reasons.

4 The future4.1 What changes might you wish topropose to future rural development policythat could improve its effectiveness andefficiency in tackling problems faced byrural society in Northern Ireland? Pleaseexplain how these changes would bringabout improvements, in your view.

4.2 Consider the impact of othergovernment policies on rural areas andrural development, e.g. Regional Policy forNorthern Ireland, policies on health,education, employment creation and soon. Do these work in harmony with ruraldevelopment policy, or are there conflictsor outstanding issues? What case is therefor a more integrated approach to addresskey rural issues, and how might this beachieved? What role could/should DARDhave in taking this process forward?

4.3 What structures need to be put inplace to improve the delivery of rural policyincluding rural community infrastructure?

4.4 Is DARD the most appropriateDepartment to champion ruraldevelopment policy in Northern Ireland?Do you wish to comment on any alternativearrangements?

4.5 What future role/ linkage will theenvironment have in rural development?Will this largely be to ensure theprotection/ maintenance of theenvironment (e.g. cross compliance) or canthe environment act as a key resource inwhich to further rural development? Isthere a future economic return / benefit ofenvironmental initiatives?

4.6 In your view, are there anyimplications for rural development policyarising from the following (please explainwhat these are, in your response):

• Potential effects of losing Objective1 status for Northern Irelandbeyond 2006;

• Impact of EU enlargement;• Impact of changes in general UK

regional policy;• Current reforms of the CAP;• Changes in planning policy;• Demographic changes in rural

Northern Ireland; and• Implementation of new EU

Environmental legislation (notablythe Water Framework Directive).

1 The understanding of rural development ranges from a view thatthe process involves a broad multi-sectoral concept whichembraces a wide range of economic and social activity (i.e. allGovernment policies and interventions which are directed towardsimproving the physical, economic and social conditions of peopleliving in rural areas) to a one which equates rural developmentmore with the development of agriculture and agricultural relatedsupport.

D1

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Study on Rural Policy Appendix D

Appendix D: Soundings

(A) Meetings, Focus Groups and telephone interviews (B) Submissions received via post and email

N FOEMA O NOITASINAGR (A) M SGNITEE

/ SUCOF

SPUORG /ENOHPELET

SWEIVRETNI

(B)S SNOISSIMBU

AIVDEVIECER

TSOP /E- LIAM

licnuoCtcirtsiDegdirbnaB ✓

gninnalPPDB ✓

ytinummoCehtnissenisuB ✓

tsurTegatireHsnelGdnatsaoCyawesuaC ✓

esirpretnElaruRdnadooF,erutlucirgAfoegelloC ✓

ecnaillAedisyrtnuoC ✓ ✓

DRAD ✓ ✓

LACD ✓ ✓

ARGCD ✓

ED ✓

LED ✓ ✓

ITED ✓ ✓

SPSSHD ✓

EOD ✓

licnuoCtcirtsiDnwoD ✓

DRD ✓

DSD ✓ ✓

PUD ✓ ✓

INrofnoitatneserpeRUE ✓

uaeruBseilimaFgnimraF ✓

NABCI ✓

IFI ✓

+redaeL ✓ ✓

dtLpihsrentraPaerAtlefarehgaM ✓

tsurTegatireHenruoM ✓ ✓

tsurTlanoitaN ✓

muroFcimonocEoicoSenruoM&yrweN ✓ ✓

APAIN ✓

LEIN ✓

EHIN ✓

ARSIN ✓

MFDMFO ✓ ✓

BUQ ✓

NCR ✓ ✓

CDR ✓ ✓

noitartsinimdAcilbuPfoweiveR ✓

BPSR ✓

troppuSlaruR ✓

skrowteNtroppuSlaruR ✓

knaTknihTs’nemoWlaruR ✓ ✓

PLDS ✓

BPUES ✓ ✓

nieFnniS ✓ ✓

erutlucirgAfoytlucaF,DCU ✓

UFU ✓ ✓

/edisyrtnuoCehtfonoitcetorPehtrofyteicoSretslUsbulCgnilbmaRfonoitaredeFretslU ✓ ✓

tsurTefildliWretslU ✓ ✓

ytraPtsinoinUretslU ✓ ✓

ycnegAtnempoleveDdnaecruoseRs’nemoW ✓ ✓

FWW ✓ ✓

dnalerInrehtroNnoitcAhtuoY ✓

N FOEMA O NOITASINAGR (A) M SGNITEE

/ SUCOF

SPUORG /ENOHPELET

SWEIVRETNI

(B)S SNOISSIMBU

AIVDEVIECER

TSOP /E- LIAM

E1

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Study on Rural Policy Appendix E

Appendix E: Baseline position and needs of rural areas in Northern Ireland

Introduction1 Following the end of the SecondWorld War and up until the 1980s, abroadly stable and coherent view of ruralpolicy and agriculture was maintained byboth Europe and the UK, centered on thepremise that a prosperous agriculturalsector was the key to food security, asound rural economy and rural amenity.

2 Since the 1980s this coherent viewof agriculture and rural policy has evolved.A range of issues at EU level are relevantand include the budgetary cost ofagriculture policy in the European Union;concerns over the environmental impactsof agriculture; disputes over internationaltrade made explicit through the GATT roundof trade negotiations; and counterurbanisation reducing agricultural land andthe character of the rural population1 . As aresult of these factors and other dynamics,rural areas continue to be rapidly changingin ways that are reshaping communitiesand blurring previous urban and ruraldistinctions. In addition, alongside thesedevelopments, it is important forGovernment to be aware of changes inrural needs and society, if policy is toeffectively address rural issues.

3 In terms of change at the nationallevel, a review of the Rural White Papers inEngland and the Republic of Ireland showsthat rural areas have experienced anumber of common trends and face similarchallenges. These include the following:

• Population growth: net migration ofpeople into wholly or predominantlyrural districts. This is the drift ofpeople into the countryside.However, outside of the areasclose to the main urban centres,some more remote rural areas inNorthern Ireland are experiencingcontinued and persistentpopulation decline;

• An ageing population: an increasingnumber of people aged 65 andover. The loss of educated,dynamic and ambitious youngpeople in some rural areas hasdepleted the crucial entrepreneurialresource and impacted on themorale of the community as well asthe social and cultural quality oflife;

• Relative prosperity especially inmore accessible areas: higherincome per head than the nationalaverage in some rural areas andwith a disadvantaged minorityamidst prevailing affluence;

• Economic weakness, withassociated social deprivation, in aminority of ‘lagging’ rural areas:characteristically in areas adjustingto a decline in agriculture andfishing, and tending to be in moreperipheral areas;

• Convergence between the urbanand rural economies: althoughagriculture is still at the core of theeconomy and society, employmentin agriculture has decreased and isdecreasing further. For example,for every job lost in agriculture inIreland during the period 1991–1996, 5 jobs were created withinother sectors in rural areas;

• Increased mobility through accessto a car: bringing benefits for manybut reducing the customer base forpublic transport and thus creatingdifficulties for those withoutaccess to a car; and

• Pressures on the countryside –especially through the demand forhousing and transport and modernintensive farming methods.

4 Given these changes at theEuropean and national level, this Sectionof the review aims to examine theeconomic, social and environmental needsof rural areas in Northern Ireland. First, theSection aims to analyse Northern Ireland’srural economy by placing it in the contextof the global, UK, and overall domesticeconomic environment in which it isperforming. As a starting point for this

analysis a definition of rural has beenpresented as a ‘working assumption’ forthe purposes of analysis within thisSection (which is the definition currentlybeing used by DARD). Following on fromthis, economic, social and environmentalconditions are assessed by examiningNorthern Ireland as a place to live, to workand do business. Under the heading aPlace to Govern, the Section then providesa reflection on the policy environment forrural areas by mapping rural activity acrossGovernment Departments. To conclude,the Section reflects on the likely outlookfor the economy in rural Northern Ireland.

5 The Section is structured asfollows:

• Definition of rural: a definition ofrural has been presented as a‘working assumption’ for thepurposes of analysis within thisSection;

• Wider economic context: recentglobal and national economictrends and the implications forNorthern Ireland;

• A place to Live: an analysis ofdemographic, education, housingstatistics and the level of access toservices in rural areas.

• A place to Work: an analysis of thesub-regional labour market and anexamination of the agriculture,manufacturing, tourism andenvironmental sectors.

• A place to do Business: ananalysis of the businessenvironment and businessstructure in Northern Ireland,including an outlook for the futureof rural Northern Ireland; and

• A place to Govern: an analysis ofexplicit and implicit policy impacts.

A definition of ‘rural’6 Before examining the economic,social and working environmentalconditions in Northern Ireland, it isimportant to establish a definition of ‘rural’for the purposes of the analysis toestablish rural needs in this Section.However, as there is an absence of agenerally accepted definition (as discussed1 Hodge, I (1997) The Rural White Papers in Great Britain, Journal

of Environment Planning and Management, 40 (3), 375–376

E2


in Section III) and given the fact that up-to-date statistics available below DistrictCouncil level are quite limited, thisanalysis has adopted the definition usedby DARD in the development of the NILEADER+ Programme and the NI RuralDevelopment Regulation Plan(Accompanying Measures).

7 For the purposes of this analysis,therefore, rural areas have been definedas the 17 most rural of Northern Ireland’s26 District Councils. Table 1 provides asummary of this definition.

The wider economic context

Key global economic trends andimplications for rural economies8 Before discussing the recenttrends of the rural economy in NorthernIreland, it is important to place itsperformance in the context of the widereconomic environment. In this sub-sectionwe briefly examine the global economicenvironment before considering theimplications for Northern Ireland.

9 The global economy is still slowlyrecovering from the rather unsteady growthduring 2001 and 2002. Analysis(described in more detail in PwC’spublication The Northern Ireland EconomicReview and Outlook) by individual countriessuggests a two tiered growth environmentwith the Euroland economies stillstruggling whilst the US, UK anddeveloping economies, performedrelatively well. As a result the worldeconomy has still not reverted to ‘trend’growth of 3.5%.

10 In recent years the nature offoreign direct investment (FDI) has beenchanging and can be summarised by thefollowing stylised trends:

• most of the recent manufacturingFDI tends to be the low valueadded elements of the supplychain;

• manufacturing FDI is now favouringlow cost countries, given its lowvalue added characteristics; and

Table 1: Rural and Urban District Councils in Northern Ireland

• the largest growth in FDI involvestradable services which tends toprefer city locations.

11 In addition, technology and digitalcommunications are growing inimportance. DTI (1999) identify four keydrivers which are changing the nature ofcompetition and the way manufacturers dobusiness: revolutionary changes in ICT, theincreasing pace of change in science andtechnology, increasingly global competition,and changing consumer demand. Changein technology and digital communicationsis forcing employers not only to investfaster than ever before in their nextgeneration of products but also to keepabreast of the latest techniques andprocesses in order to produce themcompetitively.

12 Furthermore, there is an increasing

recognition of the importance ofenvironmental sustainability. Themanufacturing sector will have to complywith stricter environmental regulation inthe future. Indeed markets may demandmore environmentally friendly material andproducts. To realise efficiency gains,manufacturers may need to adopt energyand resource-saving technology. Inaddition, regulatory environment andstandards may facilitate change inmanufacturing sector. The intellectualproperty rights system might have torespond to changes in an innovationprocess that is increasingly based onknowledge sharing and networking. Theadoption of new technologies inmanufacturing will also depend on theavailability of industrial standards andtesting procedures to ensure reliable andinterchangeable devices.

R LARU U NABR

tcirtsiDdnaytiChgamrA hguoroBmirtnA

hguoroBanemyllaB hguoroBsdrA

hguoroByenomyllaB ytiCtsafleB

tcirtsiDegdirbnaB hguoroBsugrefkcirraC

hguoroBeniareloC hguoroBhgaereltsaC

hguoroBnwotskooC ytiCyrreD

hguoroBnovagiarC ytiCnrubsiL

tcirtsiDnwoD hguoroByebbanwotweN

hguoroBnonnagnuD hguoroBnwoDhtroN

tcirtsiDhganamreF

hguoroBenraL

hguoroBydavamiL

tcirtsiDtlefarehgaM

tcirtsiDelyoM

tcirtsiDenruoMdnayrweN

tcirtsiDhgamO

tcirtsiDenabartS

E3


13 There has also been an increase inthe incidence of external shocks. Theworld economy has been adverselyaffected by exogenous events such asterrorist activities and oil price rises.

14 Finally, there has been a change tothe nature of agriculture trade. From theearlier 1990s the price of food productshas been falling. Increased exports fromlow cost developing nations, combinedwith large supermarkets have been puttingdown ward pressure on the prices of foodproducts from developed nations. At theselower levels, producers in developednations find that it is no longer economicto remain in the sector.

Recent issues for the NorthernIreland economy andimplications for rural economies15 In the mid to late 1990s, theNorthern Ireland economy experiencedfluctuations in GDP growth from around4.3% to 1.2% per annum. However since1999, GDP growth in Northern Ireland hasbeen more consistent. PwC’s publicationThe Northern Ireland Economic Review andOutlook estimates that growth will roughlymatch the UK rate to 2005. Although wecan not estimate GDP growth separatelyfor the rural and urban regions of NorthernIreland, the figure overleaf implies that allareas in the economy will enjoy the benefitof consistent growth (Figure 1).

16 Throughout early 2004, theNorthern Ireland economy experiencedrecord high levels of employment (asshown in Figure 2) and house prices,record low levels of unemployment, andstrengthening business confidence.

17 However, Northern Ireland’seconomy is still heavily reliant on thepublic sector (35.7% in March 2004) andhas a below average concentration ofemployees in private services.

18 In addition, employment in themanufacturing sector has been declining.Over the period September 1990 toSeptember 2003 employment in the sectorhas contracted by -13.8% (14,660

Figure 1: Growth in GDP, NI, UK and RoI (1995 to 2005)

Source: PwC

Figure 2: Growth in total employment (1980 = 100)

Source: DETI and National Statistics

employees). That has led to a reduction ina traditional source of employment in ruralareas.

19 At the same time the Tourismsector has experienced slow growth. Inspite of a record year in 2003, withregards visitor numbers, the growth hasbeen concentrated in the urban economy.In addition, there are limited opportunitiesfor rural areas to develop their tourismsector, relative to urban.

20 With regards FDI, the total value ofinvestment by externally owned companiesin the region has been in relative declinesince 1997/98. In addition, the majority of

recent investment has been concentratedin the service sector which prefers Citycentre locations as apposed to out oftown, green field sites.

21 Finally, Northern Ireland has a lowrate of business start ups. NorthernIreland’s VAT registrations for 2002 (SeeFigure 3) show that the region was aheadof only Wales and the North East. In orderto bring the region’s level of start-ups upto the UK average, it would require anadditional 1,390 businesses to becreated.

22 In contrast, the Northern Irelandeconomy has historically had a high stock

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

est

2004

est

2005

est

Northern Ireland Republic of Ireland United Kingdom

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Year

Northern Ireland

United Kingdom

E4


Figure 5: Northern Ireland population growth 1992 to 2002

Source: NISRA

Figure 3: Regional new VAT registrations

Source: www.nomisweb.com

Figure 4: Regional stock of VAT registered businesses


of VAT registered businesses whencompared to the UK. However, Figure 4shows how important the agriculturalsector is to the region. Over a third ofNorthern Ireland’s VAT registeredbusinesses are found in the agriculturalsector compared to the UK average of8.8%.

23 Therefore, regardless of recentlabour market success, the region’s levelof prosperity is still amongst the lowest ofall Government Office Regions2. Thesectoral mix of both Northern Ireland’sbusinesses and employment hashistorically made the rural economy avital component of overall performance.

24 Having outlined the trends in theglobal economic environment and reflectedon the implications for Northern Ireland,the Section now aims to assesseseconomic, social and environmentalconditions in rural areas by examiningNorthern Ireland as a place to live, to workand do business.

A place to live25 There are four aspects to this sub-section, population growth, educationalachievement, housing and the level ofaccess to services in rural areas.

26 Northern Ireland had a populationof nearly 1.7m people in 2002, 2.9% ofthe total UK population. Over the decade1990 to 2000, the population of NorthernIreland grew by some 5.5% (See Figure 5).The forecasted rate for 2000 to 2010however, stands around 2.9%. Thisequates to a population rise of 87,000people over the period 1990 to 2000compared to 44,000 over the period 2000to 2010.

27 Using the definition of ‘rural’discussed above, 48.5% of the populationcan be defined as rural in 2002, comparedto the remaining 51.5% which were urban.

2 These are the Government designated regional units of the UKas detailed in Figures 2 and 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2002

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Agriculture

Other

2002

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Rural Urban NI

E5


28 Overall, Northern Ireland’spopulation growth is forecast todecelerate. The size of the working agepopulation in Northern Ireland stood atjust over 1 million in 2002. However, giventhat the number of live births have beenfalling and are forecast to fall further, theabsolute size of Northern Ireland’s workingage population will decline from 2020onwards, if the current assumptions hold.

29 Analysis of live birth and deathrates per 1,000 of the population at LocalGovernment District level shows that:

• Rural Northern Ireland has higherlive birth rates per 1,000 of thepopulation than Urban NorthernIreland; and

• Rural Northern Ireland has lowerdeath rates per 1,000 of thepopulation relative to urban.

30 The implications of these trendsare highlighted in Figure 6. It is estimatedthat over the period 2002 to 2017 thepopulation of rural Northern Ireland willgrow by 9.8% compared to 1.3% for urbanNorthern Ireland.

31 As a result of the above it is clearthat, the population of rural NorthernIreland is expanding at a faster rate thanthat of urban Northern Ireland. The clearimplications of these trends are that, allother things remaining equal, the ruralareas of Northern Ireland will have accessto a faster growing working agepopulation than the urban areas.Consequently, the urban areas ofNorthern Ireland will eventuallyexperience a relative decline in theirworking age population before the ruralareas.

32 By implication, rural areas inNorthern Ireland in the main tend to havea higher proportion of younger peoplerelative to urban. In addition, urban areastend in general, to have a higherproportion of people aged 65 plus.

33 Focusing on educationalattainment, there are two main indicatorsof success; the percent of the populationaged 16 plus with no qualifications, andthe percent of the population aged 16 plusqualified to degree level or above. Map 1shows that those areas with over 46% ofthe population with no qualifications aregenerally west of the Lough and centralBelfast.

34 In addition, Map 2 shows thatthose areas with over 19% of theirpopulation qualified to a degree level orabove are generally concentrated in theBMA and Coleraine. A possible explanationcould be a lack employment opportunitiesin rural areas (however this is discussed indetail in the proceeding sub-section).

35 Turning to the housing market inNorthern Ireland, recent years havewitnesses a continuation of the strengthexperienced in the late 1990s. Since Q41995 the average house price in the

Figure 6: Population projections, 2002 to 2017

Source: NISRA

780

800

820

840

860

880

900

920

Rural

Urban

Map 1: Percent of population aged 16 plus, with no qualifications, 2001

Source: Census 2001

E6


Map 2: Percent of population aged 16 plus, qualified to degree level or above, 2001

Source: Census 2001

region, using estimates from Halifax andBank of Scotland (HBOS), has doubled to£93,692 (Q1 2004). The average house inNorthern Ireland is now 4.5 times averagegross annual earnings (compared to 6 inthe UK), which suggests a continuing risein the cost of living in Northern Ireland.

36 Analysis of house prices by LocalGovernment District identifies a cleardivide between rural and urban districts inNorthern Ireland. Map 3 shows housesprices at Local Government District level.

37 Using DSD data, the averagehouse price in rural Northern Ireland was£94,318 in 2003 Q4 compared to£129,275 for urban areas. As can be seenfrom the analysis included in Map 3,house prices at Local Government Districtlevel follow a strong geographical trend.With the exceptions of Larne andBallymoney, the housing market isstrongest around the Belfast MetropolitanArea, and weakens the further west onemoves.

38 In parallel with (and possibly adirect result of) the distribution of houseprices, rural housing demand is also notuniform across in Northern Ireland with thegreatest concentration of planningapplications being located in the GreaterBelfast area and the surrounding districtcouncil areas (i.e. the Belfast Travel toWork Area). Over the last decade or so thedemand for housing in rural areas hasincreased significantly. The numbers ofsingle new dwellings being approved hasincreased from 1,790 in 1991/92 to5,628 in 2002/03 reaching a numberthat is approaching treble the numberapproved annually in England, Scotlandand Wales combined3 . In addition, thenumber of approvals of replacementdwellings in the countryside has followed

Map 3: Northern Ireland House prices (2003 Q4)

Source: DARD

3 Department for Regional Development (2004) PPS 14 –Sustainable Development in the Countryside – Issues Paper. June2004.

E7


an upward trend increasing from 607 in1991/92 to 1,283 by 2002/03. However,in recent years the highest number ofsingle dwellings approved in thecountryside has been in Fermanagh,Newry and Mourne and Armagh4 .

39 Further expansion in these ruralareas is likely to continue into the future.Northern Ireland’s Regional DevelopmentStrategy by the Department for RegionalDevelopment estimated that 160,000 newhouses were required across NorthernIreland from 1998 to 2015. In particular,81,050 houses are planned for the ruralareas with the remaining 78,950 plannedfor urban areas. In addition, to helpmaintain the balance of growth betweenthe Belfast Metropolitan Area (BMA) andthe rest of Northern Ireland, the BMAdistricts have been allocated 51,000houses.

40 The increases in rural housingdemand have placed pressures on thecountryside and the ability of the rurallandscape to absorb further development.While the impact of development and landmanagement in rural areas will beexamined more closely in later sections ofthis chapter, single dwellings in thecountryside can led to the deterioration ofthe water supply from increased septictank use, deterioration of rural landscapecharacter, loss of habitat, fragmentation ofagricultural land and increased trafficlevels and associated pollution. Thedispersal of rural settlements is alsoplacing on infrastructure and servicedelivery. Indeed, the National Trust’sreport of the Northern Ireland PlanningCommission has recommended ‘animmediate moratorium on grants ofplanning permission for single dwellings inthe countryside’5.

41 Rural housing, however, can beregarded as divisive issue as otherstakeholders argue that it provides anopportunity for the community to utilisetheir land assets and exercise their right tolive in the open countryside6 . In addition,new dwellers can stimulate new communityactivities and increase demand forincreased rural private sector provision.

42 In terms of social conditions inrural areas, access to services is onefactor which impinges on theattractiveness of rural areas as a ‘placeto live’. The quality of rural services isfurther impinged by the arrival of peoplefrom urban areas who may be ‘jumping thegreen belt’ in search of space and qualityof life. As highlighted in RDCs 2003Baseline Study7 ‘rural society is anincreasingly complex mix of differentpeople living in the countryside, someworking in it, some commuting to the cityfor work’.

43 In their report for the RDC, Greer etal (2003)8 highlighted the shortfall withinthe Noble Deprivation Index in taking intoaccount the degree of accessibility to keyservices in rural areas. The top mostdeprived wards based on ‘access toservices’ domain are all rural, yet only 4 ofthese wards appear in the top 20 mostdeprived wards based on the ‘multipledeprivation index’. The difficulty with theapplication of the Noble Index has recentlybeen highlighted by both the RDC andRCN.

44 Launching the Greer et al (2003)report, the chief executive of the RDCstated ‘the report examines in a detailedway three particular areas of concern forthe rural community: access to transport,access to ATM machines and general retailoutlets and access to waste managementservices. We have concentrated on thesethree because it was clear to the Council

that these were of real and pressingconcern. Our conclusion is that in eachservice area the rural community ofNorthern Ireland is significantlydisadvantaged….the rural community hasas much right to access vital services asanyone else in Northern Ireland’. Inparticular the report identifies variousissues facing rural Northern Ireland inrelation to service provision:

• 19 Post Offices closed between2001 and 2003. Just over onethird were in rural areas;

• Provision for young people is acontinuous concern for many ruralcommunities. The provision ofyouth clubs is consistently betterin district towns than in ruralhinterlands which means thatyoung people must find a means oftransport to attend a youth club;

• In addition, DHSSPS research9

shows that in relation topharmacies; dentists; opticians; GPpractices, children’s homes; daycentres; nursing homes; acutehospital inpatient services andoutput services; maternityservices; and accident andemergency services – that thoseliving in rural areas have to travelfurther to access such health andsocial services and the number ofsuch services in proportion to thepopulation of rural areas is low incomparison with urban provision.For example, in terms of dentists,fifteen percent of the NI populationlive in the most rural wards and 3%(or 25) of dental surgeries arelocated in these areas. Theaverage travel time to a dentalpractitioner in rural areas is morethan double (9 minutes) that innon-rural areas (regardless ofweighting for need) (4 minutes).The average travel time from rural

4 Ibid5 A Sense of Place (2004) Report of the Northern Ireland PlanningCommission, The National Trust, March 2004.

6 Department for Regional Development (2004) PPS 14 –Sustainable Development in the Countryside – Issues Paper. June2004.7 RDC (2003) A Picture of Rural Change 2003, A Report by theRural Development Council8 Greer J, Murray D, and Murtagh B. (2003) Services in RuralNorthern Ireland: Report to the RDC, January 2003

9 DHSSPS (2004) Equalities and Inequalities in Health and SocialCare in NI: A Statistical Overview (See Appendix V – Comparison ofrural areas and the NI average for accessibility indicators).

E8


areas to an A&E Department isalso over 21 minutes, which isalmost twice as long as from non-rural areas; and

• The provision of day care centresis based in district or larger townsand there is little outreach intorural areas.

45 Social capital is built on trust andgood relations and one way in which abroader level of trust could be underminedis in the overall level of crime experiencedor perceived from place to place. Theoverall crime figures show a higher numberof crimes recorded in urban areas,however, it appears that there are pocketsof rural NI where crime rates areparticularly high such as part of Ballymenaand parts of County Down.

46 Linked to the high levels of socialcapital, rural areas in Northern Irelandalso contain a healthy communityinfrastructure. NICVA currently estimatethat 1594 community and voluntary groupsare established in rural areas for a widerange of purposes including education andtraining, cross-border do-operation relief ofpoverty and community transport throughto sport and recreation, animals, and artsand culture. With specific regard to ruralactivity, NICVA note that 44 voluntary andcommunity groups are currentlyestablished to promote rural developmentin Northern Ireland.

47 The maintenance of services inrural areas is very important to maintainsocial cohesion. The DARD Rural Proofingguidelines10 which were recently publishedadvocated that ‘as far as possible publicservices should be accessible on a fairbasis to the rural community’. Therefore itappears that more attention needs to bepaid to the provision of services in ruralareas. In addition local people (includingthe new dwellers in rural areas) need to be

more involved in the decisions thatinfluence both the delivery and structure ofservices. On this basis there is a need toensure adequate access to key publicservices (for example, health, education)and the provision of key community levelservices which assist the maintenanceand enhancement of social capital.

48 As highlighted in the RDC’s Beaconcommunity work, this sense of communityis increasingly challenged in some areasby such an influx of people. Such personsare often drawn to rural areas as it asseen as offering a better quality of life.However, commuting not only represents asignificant energy and congestion cost onsociety, or an undermining of localservices and of economies through a ruralto urban ‘brain drain’, but also ‘stealstime’ which could be invested in the socialcapital of rural communities. As well hascreating environmental impacts, the RuralDevelopment Council also argues that theinflux of urban dwellers is creating aperception of some areas of thecountryside becoming ‘lifestyle areas’ andchallenging the sense of community inrural areas. As the rural areas are oftensettled by people who want the quality oflife associated with the countryside yetlook to the cities and towns for services,employment and social contracts, this canled to alienation with the traditional ruralcommunities11 .

49 Furthermore, as the new dwellersoften commute to work this representssignificant energy and congestion costsbut also reduces the opportunities toinvest in the social capital of the localcommunity. It is held that the lack of timeundermines the inclusivity of communitydevelopment approaches to strengtheningcommunity, inhibits local citizenship andatrophies key social qualities ofneighbourliness, collective care a sharedsense of place12 . All of these are

important to achieving welfare goals andsustainability and require a partnershipapproach between rural and regionalplanning policies. Therefore there is aneed to address the influx of urbandwellers in terms of the impact thishaving on the sense of community in ruralareas.

50 Although there is a rich resource ofsocial capital and community infrastructurein rural areas and ‘peacelines’ may only bea feature of urban areas, communitydivisions in rural areas still remain strong.In a report on community and conflict inrural areas13 , it was concluded thatalthough the same geographic space isshared, the two main communities inNorthern Ireland live separate and distinctlives. In this respect, it is held that there issome evidence that farming conforms tosocial sectarian patterns in terms of saleof land. While it is accepted that farmersrely on near neighbours for socialinteraction and for help during busy farmtimes, regardless of communitybackground, as a result of tensionsstemming mainly from violence in NorthernIreland, most rural communities havetended to place reliance on establishedfamily or personal connections. Thissuggests that there is a need to build onexisting social and working relationshipsand to create the opportunity to establishnew relationships.

51 In regard to other quality of lifeissues, research suggests that there arehealth and social care inequalitiesbetween rural and urban wards in NorthernIreland14 . The research demonstrates thatthere are positive and negative factors forrural areas. On the one hand, the healthindicators demonstrated that the quality ofhealth was generally better in rural areasthan non-rural areas with a lower mortalityrates for people aged under 75, higher lifeexpectancy, lower cancer incidence ratesand lower and the teenage birth rate. On

10 DARD (2004) A Guide to Rural Proofing. Considering the needsof rural areas and communities

13 Murtagh, B. (1996) Community and Conflict in Rural Ulster14 DHSSPS (2004) Equalities and inequalities in health and socialcare in NI: a statistical overview (See Appendix II – Comparison ofrural and non-rural areas for morbidity and utilisation indicators).

11 Rural Development Council (2004) A Picture of Rural Change,June 2003.12 Rural Development Council (2004) Toward a New Rural Policyin the Region: the Next 10 Years. Northern Ireland RuralDevelopment Council Submission to the Review of Rural Policy.

E9


the other hand, however, health and socialcare provision was more difficult to accessin rural areas with the average responsetime to incidents, average travel times toA&E Departments and learning disabilityoutpatient services being greater in ruralwards than non-rural wards. In addition,infant mortality rates in rural areas aregreater than the Northern Ireland averageand standardised admission rates forpeople living in rural wards are lower thanin non-rural wards and Northern Ireland asa whole.

A Place to work52 This sub-section begins with adiscussion on the labour market,presenting the picture of economicallyactivity before concentrating on economicinactivity. This discussion then coversaverage earnings before describing thecurrent structure of employment in ruralareas and future prospects.

53 The last decade has witnessedunprecedented improvements in theNorthern Ireland labour market with bothemployment and unemployment reachingrecord levels (Figure 7). For example,claimant count unemployment, which hasfallen to 3.7%, is at its lowest level sincerecords began, and is now closer to the UKaverage (2.8%) than ever. Similarly, thenumber of jobs in Northern Ireland(678,000) has grown to its highest levelsince records began.

54 The combination of a number offactors have led to strong growth in theeconomy over the last decade, bringingwith it favourable labour market conditions,including:

• Strong global economy in the late1990s leading to higher levels ofinward investment;

• Continued high levels of publicsector spending;

• Growth in female and part timeemployment; and

• Rising incomes driving localdemand.

55 Regardless of the strides made ata regional level throughout the last

Figure 7: Northern Ireland’s labour market trends, September 1991 to September 2003

Source: DETI, Labour market trends

decade, there are unique trends at thesub-regional level. The analysis set out inMap 4 shows the economic activity rate atLocal Government District level.

56 The economic activity rate inNorthern Ireland stood at 72% in quarter 4of 2003, some 7 percentage points belowthe UK average (79%). Analysis of sub-regional economic activity rates shows thatonly those areas in the BMA have ratesequal to or higher than the UK average. In

general, the further away from Belfast, thelower the economic activity rate becomes.However, in general the rural areas (withlarger proportions of their population atworking age) have economic activityrates higher than the two cities.Interestingly, Derry has the lowesteconomic activity rate of 61.8%.

57 Analysis of employment growthover the period 1993 to 2001 shows thatthe rural economy in Northern Ireland

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

Employment

Unemployment

Map 4: Economic activity rates

Source: DETI, Labour market trends

E10


Figure 9: Long-term unemployed as a percent of total unemployed, April 2004


Figure 8: Growth in employment by Local Government District, 1993 to 2001

Source: Census of employment and DARD

the centre of Northern Ireland haverelative low levels of unemployment.However it is those to the west that appearto have the least prosperous labourmarkets. Figure 9 reinforces the message.

61 As can be seen from Figure 9, long-term unemployment (and indeed youthunemployment) as a percent of totalunemployment is higher in the ‘rural’ areasthan in the urban areas, with the exceptionof Belfast and Derry. In particular, in April2004 Fermanagh had just over 40% of itstotal number of unemployed, classified aslong-term unemployed, compared to theNorthern Ireland average of 25.8%.

62 The lower economic activity ratesand high levels of unemployment and long-term unemployment, combined with thelow levels of job density suggest that therural areas of Northern Ireland have “lessfavourable labour markets”.

63 However it must be noted thatregardless of rural areas’ relative labourmarket disadvantages compared to urbanareas, the labour markets in these ruralareas have improved considerably over thelast decade. For example, as recently asFebruary 2002, Moyle was reported tohave an unemployment rate in the doublefigures (10.4%) compared to the 3.2%shown in Map 5. Overall, recentimprovements have resulted in aconvergence of unemployment ratesacross the region and when compared tothe UK average.

64 However, the evidence alsosuggests that there may be relativelyprosperous rural areas located in andaround the BMA and the areas surroundingLough Neagh, and relatively poorer areasaround the periphery.

65 Analysis of economic inactivityshows that, with the exception of the twoCities (Belfast and Derry) every LocalGovernment District with an economicinactivity rate above the Northern Irelandaverage is a rural defined area. Figure 10presents a breakdown of NorthernIreland’s economic inactivity rates.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

experienced marginally faster growth thanthe urban economy. Over the period,employment growth in the rural economywas 18.5%, or 0.6 percentage pointsfaster than that of the urban economy(17.9% growth).

58 However, further analysis ofemployment growth by Local GovernmentDistrict (LGD) (Figure 8) shows that theeconomies which experienced growth thatof the Northern Ireland average werepredominantly made up of the rural areas.Furthermore, these rural areas tended tobe those on the North Coast and West ofthe region. Those areas with the highestgrowth over the period, tended to belocated around the BMA and the southern

border with the Republic of Ireland.Although this seems to contradict thedeprivation index referred to earlier, thestrong performance of rural districts suchas Dungannon, Cookstown and Newry andMourne have forced the growth of ruralemployment above that of the urbaneconomy.

59 In relation to unemployment, theevidence suggests that in general the‘peripheral’ areas, which had the pooresteconomic activity rates and slowestemployment growth, also have associatedhigh levels of unemployment.

60 The analysis highlights that those‘rural’ areas that surround the BMA and

E11


Map 5: Local Government District unemployment rates, May 2004


have the lowest levels of average earnings.General economic theory suggests that asa labour market tightens, average earningsshould be forced up as labour demandrises and employees negotiate higherwages. Based on the evidence above,perhaps only the BMA could boast of atightening labour market. However, one oftwo things could account for this patternabove:

• Female returnees: either morefemales are becomingeconomically activity and thereforetaking pressure off the rural labourmarkets; or

• Structure of employment: thestructure of employment is suchthat high value added sectors aremore represented in the relativelyprosperous urban areas.

69 Analysis of economic activity ratesby gender reveals that, economic activityhas fallen over the period Spring 1997 toSpring 2004 in rural Northern Ireland (seeTable 2).

70 In fact economic activity rates forboth males and females in rural areashave fallen over the period suggesting thattheir labour markets have still perhapsspare capacity. The same trend holds truefor males in urban areas, however femaleeconomic activity rates have risen by 1.9percentage points. This suggests thatdivergence in average earnings are more arepresentation of the structure ofemployment than labour marketparticipation.

71 Before dissecting the structure ofemployment, it is worth noting the relative‘value’ of a job in each sector. Figure 12presents data on Gross Value Added (GVA)per employee by industry in NorthernIreland in 2001. The higher the level ofGVA per employee, the more ‘value’ a jobin that industry is. Therefore, with theexceptions of ‘Electricity’ and ‘Mining andquarrying’, the largest GVA per employee isfound in the private service sectors (suchas business activities and financialintermediation).

66 Analysis of the economic inactivitycategories, shown in Figure 11, highlightsthat overall the rural and urban economieshave a broadly similar make-up. However,if Belfast and Derry are excluded from theurban picture, the rural economies have agreater proportion of their economicallyinactive categorised as Permanently sick /disabled (25% for rural and 22% for urban)and Other (13% versus 9% for urban).However the major difference is that theurban economies (with Belfast and Derry

excluded) have 36% of their economicallyinactive categorised as Retired versus 27%for the rural economies.

67 A further indicator of labour marketprosperousness or strength, is averageearnings. The analysis set out in Map 6presents average weekly gross pay byLocal government District in 2003.

68 As can be seen, in general thoseareas where unemployment was highest

Figure 10: Economic inactivity by Local Government District, May 2003

Source: NISRA

780

800

820

840

860

880

900

920

Rural

Urban

E12


Map 6: Average earnings by Local Government District, 2003

Source: DETI – New Earnings Survey

Figure 11: A breakdown of the economically inactive by rural and urban, May 2003

Source: NISRA

72 In addition, the least GVA peremployee is found in the public sectorindustries such as Public administration,Education, and Health and social work.Industries such as Agriculture andManufacturing are found just in the bottomhalf of the spectrum in Figure 11. Howeverit is important to note that withinManufacturing GVA per employee can beas high as £80,300 (manufacture of cokeand oil) and as low as £19,200(manufacture of textiles). This representsquite a range.

73 Figure 13 shows agricultural andmanufacturing employment in each LocalGovernment District in 2001 as a locationquotient.

74 The data in Figure 13 shows that:• All 17 rural LGDs (with the

exceptions of Coleraine andCraigavon) have a higherconcentration of employees inagriculture than the NorthernIreland average; and

• In addition, 11 of the rural LGDshave concentrations ofmanufacturing employees higherthan the regional average.

75 The results also suggests tat theNorth West and Mid Ulster includingCraigavon, Magherafelt and Dungannonhave the highest employmentconcentration, expressed in percentageterms, in the manufacturing sector. TheGreater Belfast area has a smallerconcentration of manufacturing as dofarming dominated areas such as Omaghand Fermanagh. This pattern is similar toother regions where rising costs and otherfactors drive manufacturing out of thecities, which in turn become increasinglyservice sector dominated. Carrickfergus isthe only exception to the overall patternwith a relatively high concentration ofmanufacturing employment concentrationdespite its proximity to Belfast.

76 Consequently, in general the ruraleconomies have an above averagedependence on the relatively low-valueadded sectors of agriculture and

27%

15%

20%

25%

13%

RetiredStudentLooking after home/ familyPermanently sick/ disabledOther

36%

19%

22%

9%

RetiredStudentLooking after home/ familyPermanently sick/ disabledOther

E13


Figure 12: Gross Value Added per employee by industry, 2001

Source: Office of National Statistics (ONS)

manufacturing. To put this analysis incontext, in the UK regions theconcentration of manufacturingemployment is loosely correlated withweaker economic performance15 . Analysissuggests that the most productive regionsin the UK have moved away frommanufacturing sectors and into servicessectors. In addition, the analysis suggeststhat Northern Ireland’s GVA per head ismuch lower than would be expected givenits level of manufacturing employment.This is most probably a function of arelatively underdeveloped private servicessector and a relatively large public sector.This analysis provides an importantbackdrop to the examination of thestructure of Northern Ireland’s ruraleconomy as it suggests that a smaller rolefor manufacturing in the economy isassociated with greater prosperity.

77 With regards to the high-valueadded industries, only 3 of the 17 ruralLGDs have an above averageconcentration of employees in privateservices (see Figure 14). Seen as a keydriver of a successful economy, privateservice sector employment is considerablyunderrepresented in the majority of ruraleconomies. In addition, the NorthernIreland average is itself considerablyunderrepresented when compared to theUK average.

78 The share of public sectoremployment in the region is more evenlydistributed (see Figure 13). However, only6 of the rural LGDs have concentrationsabove the Northern Ireland average. Giventhe importance of the public sector foremployment in the region and theinsulation that it provides againstdownturns, it can be argued that the ruraleconomy of Northern Ireland isunfavourably structured. Given theevidence above on high concentrations ofagriculture and manufacturing and the low

Table 2: Economic activity by gender (Spring 1997 to Spring 2004)

Source: NISRA

7991gnirpS 4002gnirpS

elaM elameF elaM elameF

laruR %9.28 %8.56 %0.08 %3.36

nabrU %8.97 %1.66 %8.77 %0.86

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Figure 13: Agricultural and manufacturing employee Location Quotients, 2001

Source: DETI, Labour Market Trends

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

15 See DETI’s report on “The Future Role of Manufacturing inNorthern Ireland” for a more comprehensive discussion.

E14


Figure 14: Private services and public services employee Location Quotients, 2001

Source: Labour Market Trends

Table 3: Farmers and other agricultural workers in Northern Ireland

Source: DARD

from a figure of nearly 65,000 in 1990.The decline has gathered pace in the pastfew years, illustrated by the loss of 4,814jobs in agriculture between 1999 and2003.

81 In addition to those directlyemployed on farms, just over 23,000people in Northern Ireland are employed inthe processing of food products, and themanufacture and supply of inputs, and hasdeclined by 7% in the period 1995–2000.

82 According to the 2001 Census,there were 20,724 employees working full-time in the Agriculture, forestry and fishingsector. Although this does not provide anexact figure of the total size of theagricultural workforce, it does highlight anumber of issues. As a whole, theNorthern Ireland economy relies on thissector for approximately 3% ofemployment. As the analysis set out inMap 7 highlights, analysis of employmentat ward level shows that with the exceptionof the BMA, Derry City and a few largetowns, the majority of Northern Ireland’swards rely on this sector for over 5% ofemployment. In fact over 100 of NorthernIreland’s 582 wards rely on this sector forover 8% of employment, 96 of which aredefined as ‘rural’.

83 The conventional measure of asector’s contribution to the economy is interms of GVA. Agriculture accounts for2.37% of the total economic output inNorthern Ireland, compared to 1.00% inthe United Kingdom as a whole.

84 More than half of all farmbusinesses in Northern Ireland areclassified, on the basis of standardised EUmeasures, as ‘very small’16 . It is generallyaccepted that these farms are unlikely toprovide full-time employment, or anadequate income solely from farmingactivities. The results of the “Social Surveyof Farmers and Farm Families” conducted

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

4991 9991 1002 3002

sremraF emit-lluF 006,42 005,12 002,02 562,91

emit-traP 005,61 001,61 008,51 827,41

sesuops'sremraF 002,6 000,7 005,6 824,6

rehtOsrekrow

emit-lluF 007,3 000,3 008,2 497,2

lausac/emit-traP 002,21 006,11 001,11 172,11

srekrowrehtodnasesuops,sremraflatoT 001,36 003,95 004,65 684,45

16 The classification of farms into the categories ‘very small’,‘small’, ‘medium’ etc is based on calculating each farm’s totalStandard Gross Margin, i.e. its output less the variable costswhich are directly attributable to it. See DARD’s Statistical Reviewof Northern Ireland Agriculture 2001, p55 for further details.

concentrations of private services, thestructure of the rural economy may beundesirable for future high and sustainedeconomic growth.

79 In order to provide an indication ofthe performance of the rural economy inNorthern Ireland, each of the main sectorsin rural areas agriculture, manufacturing,private business, public sector, tourismand the environment are discussed in

more detail below.

Agriculture80 In 2003, there were some 54,486people employed directly in agriculture(see Table 3). Slightly more than one third(35%) of these are full-time farmers, withthe remainder representing part-time andcasual/seasonal workers, and farmers’spouses. The numbers employed inagriculture have been declining steadily

E15


offset the difficult times of the previous 18months.

88 For the first half of 2003,agriculture politics were dominated by whatthe CAP reform would bring. The centralfeature of the changes, which will beintroduced in January 2005, is decoupling.This will introduce farmers paid on thebasis of past CAP receipts, regardless ofwhat they produce. In return they will berequired to deliver minimum environmentalstandards. The deal was widely seen asfavourable to Northern Ireland, andcrucially implementation was devolvedwithin the UK regions. This allowedNorthern Ireland to develop an approachsuited to local need and conditions. Thereforms will bring many changes, and formany farmers – particularly dairy farmers –a watershed for decisions about the future.This will almost certainly result in asignificant change and potentially anexodus from the industry starting in 2004/2005 and beyond.

89 Looking forward, the sector faces anumber of challenges including:

• New support arrangements;• EU Enlargement;• Broadening the market base /

increasing value added activity; and• Animal health and bio-security.

90 The industry will need to overcomethe challenges above and evolve into amore competitive and successful sector.For example, with the low-cost competitionof the EU accession countries and theirrelatively high concentration ofemployment in the agricultural sector, thesector domestically will have toconcentrate on the high-value addedactivities. For example, Organic farmingrequires stricter controls and produces ahigher value added product.

91 As presented in Figure 15 (takenfrom DETI’s report on EU enlargement)overleaf, labour costs in the accessioncountries are considerably those in the EUand Northern Ireland.

92 Of the nine accession countries

Map 7: Ward level Agri employment as a percentage of total employment, 2001

Source: 2001 Census, NISRA

in 2001 / 02 by DARD found that, 30%received income from work off their farmand 36% received a state payment. Inaddition, 44% of farmers income from theirfarm was their main or sole source ofincome.

85 For the farming industry inNorthern Ireland, 2003 was regarded as amore “reasonable year”. After aconsiderable period of more difficulttrading conditions, incomes improved, themain driver being the weakening of sterlingagainst the euro, as farmers receivedmore sterling for each Euro17 . More thanany other factor, currency rates were thesource of the industry’s better fortunes in2003. The industry also gained from therecovery of the beef market after BSE andsustained low interest rates. However thebig issue of 2003 was the reform of theCommon Agricultural Policy as detailed inSection II of the main report.

86 Farm incomes also gained from lowinterest rates. The industry owes around£500,000 to the major banks, and hasfurther debts through leasing and hirepurchase on machinery and merchantcredit. Even on the basis of bank debt, a0.5 per cent increase in interest rateswould take £2.5 million off farm incomes.In addition, it is acknowledge that with theaverage age of farmers being 55 years old,combined with a focus on the possibility ofretirement, they have suffered in line withothers from the decline in the value of anypensions that they way have invested in.

87 Throughout 2003 the beef industrygained from the rapid recovery of demandas the BSE crisis eased across Europe.The industry however continued to sufferfrom its reliance on the narrow customerbase of the major UK supermarkets, whichaffected margins and prices paid tofarmers for livestock. The dairy industryalso fared well, and began to benefit froma drive to move away from commodity intovalue added products. The poultry industryis a major and stable employer, butremained under margin pressure. The pigindustry saw some recovery of fortunes,but this was short lived and insufficient to

17 A stronger euro boosted the value of support payments fromBrussels, and perhaps more importantly, it made the UK lessattractive for food imports from other EU member states as thesegoods became more expensive. Intuitively, UK exports alsobecame more cost competitive.

E16


Figure 16: Employment in manufacturing, NI and UK: 1971–2003

Note: Manufacturing employment includes self employedSource: DETI, NS, Regional Forecasts

market. Given the free movement oflabour, wages should in theory convergeamong the member states. Therefore thecomparative advantage held by theaccession countries is unlikely to remainas strong. EU enlargement will meanincreased competition in this exportmarket. However it is unlikely to have asbig an impact on the sector as the Footand Mouth crisis recently. In addition anumber of accession countries areexperiencing poor agriculturalperformance (Czech Republic, Estonia andPoland). Furthermore, measuresestablished by the EU will prevent thecomplete dismantling of trade barriers inagriculture. Instead, the free trade ofagricultural sectors among the EU and theaccession countries will be phased in overtime. Measures will be put in place on theproducts from the accession countries thatdo not satisfy quality criteria. Howevermost of the food processing sector alreadyhave the necessary certificates.

95 Regardless, the sectordomestically may have to restructure,leading to a further reduction in thenumber of full-time farm. In addition, therewill pressure to find off-farm sources ofincome, especially given that the textilessector (often a source of a second incometo farming households) is in decline acrossNorthern Ireland.

Manufacturing96 Manufacturing employment inNorthern Ireland has been contracting for13 consecutive quarters. Throughout2003, Northern Ireland lost some 4,730manufacturing jobs, finishing the year with90,830 manufacturing employees. Thesector remains an important component ofthe economy, despite the recentcontraction in employment, and stillaccounts for 12.7% of total employment,equal to the UK average.

Figure 15: Hourly labour costs (2000)

Source: Eurostat

0

5

10

15

20

25

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

ma

nu

fac

turi

ng

em

plo

ym

en

t (0

00

s)

80

100

120

140

160

180

200m

an

ufa

ctu

rin

g e

mp

loy

me

nt

(00

0s

)

United Kingdom (LHS)

Northern Ireland (RHS)

(Malta is excluded due to lack of data),Cyprus and Slovenia had the highest hourlylabour costs in 2000. However their labourcosts are less than half that of the EUaverage. Interestingly, 7 of the countriesshown in the chart have hourly labourcosts under 20% of the EU average. Inaddition, agricultural employment as apercent of total employment stands at19.6% in Poland, 18.6% Lithuania, 15.3%in Latvia and 9.7% in Slovenia.

93 This will impact adversely in termsof competitive advantage for the EU 15,and more specifically Northern Ireland.Traditional labour intensive sectors suchas agriculture (as well as textiles and

clothing which is historically an importantsector in the rural economy) may sufferfrom the lower cost competition given thewage differentials. Evidence from existingstudies18 shows that the accessioncountries are already specialising in labourintensive sectors, in terms of trade.

94 However, labour costs in theaccession countries are likely to rise as aresult of membership of the common

18 European Commission (2000) “The Impact of Enlargement ofthe EU on SME’s in the Union”, http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/enlargement/doc/enlargement_study-summary.pdf

E17


97 Northern Ireland’s manufacturingemployment, as a percentage of theworking age population, was the UKaverage at 9.1% compared to 9.9% in2003, largely a result of lowerparticipation rates and Northern Ireland’sconcentration of public sector employment.If Northern Ireland was to have the samerelative size of manufacturing employmentas the UK, it would require an additional8,600 jobs in this sector.

98 The long term trend inmanufacturing employment in NorthernIreland, as in the rest of the UK, isdownwards, as indicated in Figure 16.

99 The chart highlights that following arelatively stable period in the 1980s and1990s, Northern Ireland’s manufacturingemployment experienced a strongcontraction after 1998. Northern Ireland isnow on an employment trend similar toelsewhere in the UK. However, whileemployment in the sector has been fallingsince 2000, productivity has beengrowing. Measured in terms of GVA perhead, manufacturing productivity increasedby 4.8% and 0.6% in 2001 and 2002respectively.

100 Despite the recessionary pattern inoverall employment the output datasuggests rather different trends.Manufacturing output rose considerably inthe period 1996–2000 in Northern Irelanddespite the corresponding reduction injobs. Analysis of manufacturing sub-sectors19 shows a marked contraction intextiles and a sharp reduction inengineering output post 2001. Metals,chemicals and, to a lesser extent, foodhave contributed to the overall growth inthe manufacturing output index in recentyears with metals particularly strong overthe last 18 months.

101 Table 4 sets out both theconcentration of employment in themanufacturing sub-sectors and the job

Table 4: Manufacturing sub-sectoral concentrations and employee change

Note: The location quotients presented are calculated by dividing the Northern Ireland employee level by theworking age population. This figure is divided by a similar ratio from the UK data. As such a figure of 1represents a sector of an equivalent UK average size.

Source: DETI, NS, Regional Forecasts

E NISEEYOLPM

TNEMYOLPME 3002000( S)

L TNEITOUQNOITACO C EGNAH 3002–3991000( S)

dooF 7.81 4.1 6.1-

selitxeT 0.01 8.1 4.41-

dooW 3.3 4.1 6.0

repap&pluP 5.6 5.0 3.0

liO&ekoC 1.0 1.0 0

slacimehC 4.3 5.0 2.0-

scitsalp&rebbuR 0.7 1.1 4.1

cillatem-nonrehtOslarenim

7.5 6.1 0.2

slateM 2.6 5.0 5.1

tnempiuqe&yrenihcaM 5.6 7.0 1.0

lacitpo&lacirtcelE 2.01 9.0 2.3

tnempiuqetropsnarT 0.11 1.1 3.0-

rehtO 2.4 7.0 6.1

gnirutcafunamlatoT 7.29 9.0 9.5-

change over the last decade in NorthernIreland.

102 Table 4 depicts a very diversepattern over the last decade. Inemployment terms only 4 of the 13 sub-sectors have lost jobs in the last decade,with textiles dominating the job loss total.Indeed without the job losses in Textiles,manufacturing would have expanded by8,500 jobs over the last decade.

103 Therefore, given that NorthernIreland still has an above average share ofmanufacturing employees in the textilessector when compared to the UK, furtherjob loses in the manufacturing sectorshould be expected. Furthermore, as wehave shown, manufacturing seems to bemore concentrated in Northern Ireland’srural economy. As a result, any future joblosses could affect the rural areas morethan the urban areas.

104 With regards the future outlook forthe manufacturing sector, Figure 17highlights a continued decline inemployment levels, both in NorthernIreland and in the UK, with an estimated16,000 job losses forecast by 2013.

105 Northern Ireland maintains aroughly UK average concentration ofemployment with 7% of the working agepopulation employed in manufacturing by2013. Nevertheless the total employmentlevel of 81,500 employed in manufacturingby 2013 is half the level in 1975.

106 Analysis set out in DETI’s TheFuture Role of Manufacturing report showsNorthern Ireland is the slowest contractingUK region over the forecast period, over 8percentage points better than the UKaverage. This reflects Northern Ireland’srecent performance which has been betterthan the UK average. It also assumes an19 See DETI’s report on “The Future Role of Manufacturing in

Northern Ireland” for a more comprehensive discussion.

E18


Figure 17: Manufacturing employment, UK and NI: 1971–2013

Note: Employment includes employees in employment and self employedSource: Regional Forecasts

unchanged regime of government supportfor industry. Some planned changes,including the phasing out of industrial de-rating may have an impact towards the endof the period.

107 The analysis of recent trendsreveals how certain industries have beensuccessful in generating jobs over the pastdespite the overall decline in themanufacturing sector. There are a numberof important issues to consider whenassessing the impacts of nichespecialisms to the overall outlook formanufacturing:

• Difficult to identify: the futuregrowth industries are probably notyet known as technologicaladvances and inventions delivernew industries over time. Thismakes it very difficult to predicttheir nature but speculativesupport for new industries, such asthat offered by Venture Capitalists,is likely to be necessary to fostersuch industries wherever they arelocated;

• Employment impact may belimited: it is unlikely that NorthernIreland has the competitiveadvantage at present to attract themajor manufacturing firms so manyniche markets may be relativelysmall scale in employment terms.This is not to say that the impacton output or local economies maynot be marked and as a resultshould not be overlooked; and

• ‘Rules’ may change: although theforecasts are based oncontinuation of the policy andlegislative backdrop that currentlyexists this may change. Rules overtaxation policy both in NorthernIreland and elsewhere and thestatus of the EU with respect tocurrency and funding policy (suchas the withdrawal of all State Aid)could well impact the relativeattractiveness of Northern Irelandas a location for manufacturing.

108 The development of opportunitiesagainst a backdrop of contraction is achallenging task for policy makers ingeneral and for the rural economy tosupport and it requires a flexible,responsiveness and risk taking strategymore commonly found outside of the publicsector.

109 Taking the forecast for jobcontraction and translating it across LGDsin NI provides a useful barometer of ‘jobsat risk’. Using manufacturing declineforecasts and assuming manufacturingcontraction occurs equally across all LGDsthe following projections are arrived at (seeTable 5).

110 This clearly identifies certain areasas more ‘at risk’ from the projecteddecline than others. Based on themanufacturing projections, Belfast,Craigavon, Derry and Lisburn stand topotentially lose the most jobs. In addition,using the analysis above, 8 of the 17LGDs classified as rural are forecast toshed more manufacturing jobs as apercent of the working age population thanthe Northern Ireland average. In terms ofoverall impact mid-Ulster areas appear tobe the most potentially severely impactedwith farming areas and greater Belfastmuch less at threat.

Public services111 The public sector remains thelargest employer in Northern Irelandaccounting for one-in-three of allemployees in employment and 60% of totalfemale employment. Employment in thesector has grown steadily for the last 20years with 5,265 jobs created in 2003.This overall growth in public sectoremployment is also reflected within eachof its sub-sectors (see Table 6).

112 Nonetheless, the future of thesector may not be as up-beat. TheChancellor announced in March 2004 thatin order to keep a balanced Budget,Government spending would have to betightened. As a result, spending on areasoutside those deemed a priority (educationand health) would have to be curtailed.Furthermore, all government departmentswill have to cut their ‘back roomadministration’ budgets by at least 2.5%per year for the next 2 years (2004 and2005).

113 In October 200420 , the MinisterFinance, Ian Pearson MP, unveiled the2005–2008 Draft Priorities and Budget,

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

ma

nu

fac

turi

ng

em

plo

ym

en

t (0

00

s)

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

ma

nu

fac

turi

ng

em

plo

ym

en

t (0

00

s)

United Kingdom (LHS)

Northern Ireland (RHS)

20 Drafted before publication of “Fit for Purpose” (Reform Agendain the NICS) and the revised Priorities and Budget 2005–08.

E19


which set out the future changes to publicsector employment, namely:

• 1,000 extra jobs to be created inhealth and education;

• A reduction of 2,300 staff in theCivil Service over the next 3 years;

• A further reduction in the CivilService as 2,600 people aretransferred to the new WaterService Go and Co and the newAgri-food & bio-sciences Institute;and

• A further 1,000 jobs redeployed asa consequence of various reforminitiatives.

114 This represents a reduction of atleast 15% on the size of the Civil Service.In addition, Government has reported thatPublic expenditure on its own can neverdeliver long-term economic growth andstability. Furthermore, they highlighted thatthe future success of the region willdepend on the wealth-generating privatesector. As a result, the future of NorthernIreland’s public sector employmentremains uncertain.

115 The 2004 Spending Review showsthat Public spending will grow in real termsat an annual average rate of around 3%over the next three years, which ishistorically low, and will be constrained inthe future. This means that in 2007–08spending on public services in NorthernIreland will be total £8,296m; £1,200million a year greater than it currently is(see Table 7).

116 The public sector has been animportant employer for rural dwellers.Forecasts are optimistic about employmentgrowth. Figure 18 presents public sectoremployment forecasts for Northern Ireland.It is estimated that an additional 20,000jobs could be created, mainly in health andeducation.

117 The trends above, of a short-termincrease in public sector employment maybe enhanced by decentralisation. However,the Gershon Review and Review of PublicAdministration (RPA) point to overallreductions in employment.

Table 5: Indicative estimates ofmanufacturing job change, NI DCs: 2003–2013

Note: Employees in employment


E TASBOJDETAMITS

KSIR

% GNKROWFOEGA

NOITALUPOPEGA

mirtnA 025- 7.1-

sdA 084- 0.1-

hgamrA 013- 9.0-

anemyllaB 068- 4.2-

yenomyllaB 012- 3.1-

egdirbnaB 052- 9.0-

tsafleB 064,2- 5.1-

sugrefkcirraC 062- 1.1-

hgaereltsaC 045- 4.1-

eniareloC 005- 5.1-

nwotskooC 023- 6.1-

novagiarC 054,1- 0.3-

yrreD 050,1- 6.1-

nwoD 022- 6.0-

nonnagnuD 067- 7.2-

hganamreF 005- 4.1-

enraL 003- 6.1-

ydavamiL 082- 4.1-

nrubsiL 080,1- 6.1-

tlefarehgaM 094- 0.2-

elyoM 04- 4.0-

&yrweNenruoM

026- 2.1-

yebbanwotweN 068- 7.1-

nwoDhtroN 023- 7.0-

hgamO 082- 0.1-

enabartS 024- 8.1-

Private services118 Private services continued to bethe main driver of economic growth in theregion throughout 2003. Following rapidemployment growth in Business servicesduring the second half of the 1990s andinto 2001, growth in 2002, was at the verysubdued pace of 1.1%. However,throughout 2003, Northern Ireland’sbusiness services sector regained some ofits previous momentum with 3.2% growth.This represents an additional 2,230employee jobs, with the sector employing72,230 people.

119 However, given the fact that thesesectors are so underrepresented inNorthern Ireland’s rural economy, anyopportunity for rapid, sustained, high valueadded growth is at best limited.

120 In addition, as highlighted earlier,any new service sector orientated FDItends to favour urban locations. Inparticular, private services FDI tends to beattracted to large cities as apposed togreen field sites in more rural areas.Furthermore, if any rural area were to besuccessful in attracting private servicesFDI, it would likely be unsustainable giventhe structure of employment in theseareas.

121 Regardless of the rural economybeing underrepresented in employment inthese sectors, the future trends in privateservices are still important for the ruraleconomy. Future trends in FDI are likely tobe concentrated around service sectoractivity. However this type of FDI is likely tofavour city centre locations and areaswhere a trained qualified workforce isreadably available.

122 It is estimated that employment inprivate services will increase by anadditional 30,000 jobs over the next 10years (Figure 19). However, given thelimited concentration of the private sectorin the rural economy, any potentialopportunities will depend on whether thereare any service sector niches that can befound outside the urban areas.

E20


Figure 18: Public sector employment in Northern Ireland, 1991 to 2030


Tourism123 Tourism experienced a record yearwith almost 2 million people visitingNorthern Ireland in 2003. Holiday visitorsincreased by 19% over the year withrevenue from visitor tourism standing at£291million (a 4% real increase).According to the Northern Ireland TouristBoard, 2004 has been shaping up well andexpectations are high for another goodyear. There is already anecdotal evidencethat hotels across the region are reportinga very positive start to the year, and insome cases bookings are alreadysignificantly up on the same period lastyear. However, despite the up-beat tourismfigures, the hotels sector finished 2003with 70 less jobs across the region.

124 Analysis at LGD level shows thatthe Tourism industry accommodated 7,880tourism related jobs in the rural economyin 2001. The 9,800 tourism related jobs inthe urban economy were dominated by the5,050 tourism jobs in Belfast. Over theperiod 1995 to 2001 tourism employmentin Northern Ireland grew by 41.2%.Comparing growth in the rural economy(20.6%) with that of the urban economy(68.6%) highlights the uneven distributionof the recent improvement in tourism.This is again relevant in relation to ruralpolicy.

125 In relation to tourism spend, againthe urban economy outperformed therural economy, with £213.1m and£181.8m respectively. However, likeemployment, Belfast accounted for£108.5m of the urban total. As Figure 20shows, the rural areas of Northern Irelandare lagging behind the urban. Howeveranalysis of growth in tourism spend from1995 to 2002 highlights that in some ruralareas the level of spend has at leastdoubled (Cookstown, Omagh, Banbridgeand Magherafelt). It must be notedhowever, that four rural areas (Larne,Limavady, Armagh, and Ballymoney)experienced a decline in the level oftourism spend over the period.

126 Figure 21 displays employmentforecasts for Northern Ireland over the

period 1991 to 2030.

127 As can be seen, tourismemployment is forecast to grow at a fairlystable rate over the forecast period. Inaddition, the Northern Ireland TouristBoard (NITB) has projected overall growthof 7% per annum in visitor numbers and9% per annum in visitor revenues. Thechallenge for the rural economy is to buildon their existing facilities and attractionsand to develop new areas of growth.

The Natural Rural Environmentas ‘a place to work’128 Although not traditionallyconsidered a major sector of the ruraleconomy, there is an increasingawareness of the contribution that thenatural environment can make to localeconomies. The Countryside Agency inEngland, for example, has produced aseries of publications which establishedthe volume and economic value of visitorspending in the English countryside.However, while no comparable data is

Table 6: Percentage employment changes in the public sector 2002 – 2003

Source: DETI

rotceS 1002 2002 3002

ytiruceSlaicoSyroslupmoC:ecnefeDdnanoitartsinimdacilbuP 2.0 0.3 4.2

noitacudE 0.2 5.2 4.1

kroWlaicoSdnahtlaeH 0.3 0.3 1.3

seitivitcAecivreSlanosrePdnalaicoS,ytinummocrehtO 6.3 9.3 1.2

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

2006

2009

2012

2015

2018

2021

2024

2027

2030

Base Scenario

Alternate scenario

Table 7: Planned public spending in Northern Ireland 2004-05 to 2007-08

Source:DFP Press Release 14/7/04

5-4002m£

60-5002m£

70-6002m£

80-7002m£

tegduBecruoseR 996,6 770,7 455,7 268,7

tegduBlatipaC 373 214 674 435

timiLerutidnepxElatnemtrapeDlatoT 400,7 024,7 319,7 692,8

E21


available in Northern Ireland, it is possibleto assess the economic importance of thenatural environment by examining thelevels of employment in agriculture andforestry, conservation activities, tourismand inward investment21 .

129 To begin it is important to note thatNorthern Ireland possesses a rich varietyof scenic countryside that is an integralpart of the region’s physical and culturalheritage with 130 distinctive areasrecorded in the Northern IrelandLandscape Character Assessment, nineexisting Areas of Outstanding NaturalBeauty (AONBs) and two further proposedAONBs. The Landscape CharacterAssessment includes areas of scenicquality and the designation of AONBs isused to identify areas of high qualitynatural landscape. Northern Ireland alsohas around 191 Areas of Special ScientificInterest (ASSIs) that have been identified(by the Environment and Heritage Service)as having the highest degree ofconservation value and the Giant’sCauseway is one of only three WorldHeritage Sites in the UK. The stones at theGiant’s Causeway and the surroundingcliffs were designated by UNESCO as aWorld Heritage Site in 1986. In addition,Northern Ireland has a rich archaeologicaland built heritage resource containing over1,500 archaeological sites andmonuments, approximately 8,600buildings listed for preservation for theirspecial architectural or historic interestand over 50 Conservation Areas designedto protect the best townscapes. The coastline in Northern Ireland is also a diverselinear ecosystem with the coastal wasterscontaining about 50% of Northern Ireland’sbiodiversity and providing anenvironmental, tourist and recreationalasset.

130 With around 80% (1.35 millionhectares) of the rural landscape in

Figure 19: Private sector employment in Northern Ireland, 1991 to 2030


Figure 20: Tourism spend in 2002 and employment in 2001 by LGD

Source: DETI/NITB

0

50

100

150

200

250

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

2006

2009

2012

2015

2018

2021

2024

2027

2030

Base Scenario

Alternate scenario

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

21 As opposed to examining employment generated, there are anumber of other indirect effects such as the purchase of goodsand services by organisations and spend associated with visitorsthat also impact on the economic impact of the environment.These activities, however, are much less defined and as a resultare more difficult to measure accurately.

E22


Figure 21: Tourism employment in Northern Ireland, 1991 to 2030


employed in the Eco-Industry24 .

132 Outside of private business, publicbodies which are directly concerned withthe environment in Northern Ireland aresignificant employers in the regionaleconomy. At central government level threegovernment departments (DARD, DoE andDRD) and one non-departmental publicbody (Waterways Ireland) together employaround 6,690 staff to improve theagricultural sector, manage wasteproducts, and maintain the environmentand heritage. In addition, at the local level,each of the 26 District Councils inNorthern Ireland employ a range of peopleto provide waste collection and disposalservices. For instance, a studycommissioned by LEDU, estimated thatthere are 1,000 such employees in localDistrict Councils. Research conducted byArena25 indicates that 88% of Councilsalso have a member of staff with specificenvironmental responsibility. Therefore,within local councils, sustainability andenvironmental issues employ around 34staff.

Northern Ireland being used for farming,agriculture is one of the main sectorsreliant on the environment. As notedearlier in this sub-section, some 54,486people are employed directly in agriculturewhich accounts for 2.37% of the totaleconomic output in Northern Ireland.Furthermore, within the agricultural sectoritself, environmental managementschemes are becoming more prominentand a range of supports are available toencourage environmentally sensitivefarming. At present, the EnvironmentalSensitive Areas programme has 4,500agreement holders and the CountrysideManagement Scheme 3,000 out of a totalof around 30,000 farmers but DARDestimate that approximately 10,000farmers will be accessing the countrysidemanagement scheme by 2006. That said,although the number of environmentallymanaged farms is increasing, otherelements such as organic farming havemade more limited progress. At presentonly 140 organic farmers now exist inNorthern Ireland covering around 4,115hectares or around 0.4% of the totalagricultural area22 . Furthermore, noappropriate environmental schemes havebeen introduced for non-farm areas.

131 There are a number of privatesector companies that also rely on theenvironment. With approximately 22 milliontonnes of waste being generated inNorthern Ireland each year and around96% of controlled waste being disposed inlandfill sites, private companies have beenestablished to provide services such aspollution control, waste management andrecycling. Initial research conducted forthis study suggests that there are 160resource management companies thatoperate in over 120 landfill sites inNorthern Ireland23 . Moreover, researchcommissioned by the EuropeanCommission in 2002 suggests that thereare 2,000 people in Northern Ireland

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

2006

2009

2012

2015

2018

2021

2024

2027

2030

Base Scenario

Alternate scenario

22 DARD Press Release, May 2003, ‘Organic Food Production’.23 Department of Finance and Personnel, Ex-Ante Evaluation ofthe Community Support Framework for Northern Ireland 2000 –2006.24 Analysis of the Eco-Industries, Employment and ExportPotential, Ecotec 2002.

25 Arena, Northern Ireland 6th Environmental ManagementSurvey, 2003.26 Data was derived from the State of the Sector III, NICVA 2002,plus information from the National Trust Northern Ireland who didnot contribute towards the State of the Sector data.

133 Voluntary organisations in NorthernIreland also have roles in the environment,conservation or heritage, although theavailable research is limited. Desk basedresearch conducted for this studyidentified around 30 heritage,conservation and wildlife voluntary andnon profit-making organisations inNorthern Ireland, employing around 850people. Organisations that are concernedwith the natural environment, built heritageor conservation, account for around 4% ofthe voluntary and community sector inNorthern Ireland. The total income to theenvironment and conservation voluntaryorganisations in 2002 was estimated at£36.2 million, around £26 million of whichwas generated from grants anddonations26 . Therefore the environmentnot only provides employment andgenerates income in the public and privatesector, but is also an important element ofthe voluntary sector.

134 In addition, the quality of thenatural environment has been recognisedas an important factor for companieschoosing to invest in Northern Ireland.Consultations with Invest NI revealed thatwhilst there has been no quantitativeresearch conducted into why investorschoose Northern Ireland, they noted thatthe quality of life with a rich variety ofscenery and cultural heritage is one of thetop ten reasons why foreign investors

E23


Table 8: Visitors to the Top 20 Visitor attractions in 2002*

*Source: NITB (2002)** Source: Giant’s Causeway Visitor Information Centre

Bold denotes the attractions in rural areas.

A NOITCARTT V ROTISI N SREBMU % LLAOTSROTISIVFO

SNOITCARTTA 6.8( M)

**yawesuaCs’tnaiG 000,524 9.4

evreseRerutaNdnalsIdrofxO 506,022 5.2

muesuMretslU 218,012 4.2

ooZtsafleB 866,012 4.2

5W 979,991 3.2

dnartStrawetstroP 728,161 8.1

muesuMtropsnarT&kloFretslU 810,841 7.1

sirolpxE 003,131 5.1

kraPkloFnaciremAretslU 071,621 4.1

egdirBepoRedeR-a-kcirraC 251,421 4.1

yrettoPkeelleB 892,121 4.1

ertneCkcirtaPtS 241,021 4.1

sllaWyrreD 000,021 4.1

yrellitsiDsllimhsuBdlO 200,101 1.1

snedraG&esuoHtrawetStnuoM 649,09 0.1

ertneCeculnuD 063,67 9.0

snedraGeromhgannaT 000,07 8.0

dlrowretaW 614,96 8.0

ertneClwofdliWeipsEeltsaC 000,66 8.0

esuoHenolaM 000,56 7.0

latoT 596,858,2 6.23

choose Northern Ireland. This high qualityliving environment is also an importantelement when attracting and relocating keymanagerial staff. Furthermore, in a recentreport by Anderson et al (2004) theattractiveness of the rural environment,and the associated perception of a higherquality of life, was considered a keybusiness advantage which rural businessenjoyed over their urban counterparts27.

135 Reviews of inward investors toNorthern Ireland conducted by PwC28 alsonoted that the quality of the naturalenvironment and the wide range of culturaland sporting activities are an importantincentive for investors. The beautifullandscape and the accessibility of leisureactivities that rely on the environment suchas golf, fishing and sailing were all animportant aspect of inward investment.

136 Although tourism is a key employerin the rural economy (as discussedearlier), it is difficult to fully estimate theimpact of the rural environment as anattraction for visitors to Northern Irelandwithout conducting extensive primaryresearch. However, from analysingsecondary research from the NationalTrust, NITB and Regional TourismOrganisations, a number of key points canbe noted.

137 With regard to visitor attractionsTable 8, the majority of the twenty mostpopular attractions are naturalenvironments or built heritage visitorcentres (NITB, 2002) many of which arelocated in rural areas. More specifically,visits to Country and Forest parks andwildlife and nature reserves, respectively,account for 41% and 9% of the total 8.6million visits to attractions in NorthernIreland.

138 In 2002 NITB conducted surveysinto the purpose of visit to Northern

Ireland for over 340,000 out-of-statevisitors29 . Whilst the majority of visitors toNorthern Ireland came to visit friends andrelatives, the surveys showed that of the28,400 who stated that their purpose ofvisit was for a holiday or leisure activity,64% noted that their actual reason forvisiting Northern Ireland was to participatein activities that rely on the environment. A

further 11% of these visitors stated thattheir purpose was to visit museums orhistoric properties as shown in Table 9. Ofthe total 318,800 visitors surveyed, 40%stated that they participated in activitiesthat rely on the environment and a further55% visited historic properties whilstvisiting Northern Ireland for other reasons.

139 As well as assessing the purposeof visits, NITB noted that tourists attractedto Northern Ireland by activities tend to behigh spenders, for example, golf tripsgenerate between £13 and £14 million

27 Anderson, D. Tyler, P, McCalion, T. Ayre, T and Matthews, D.(2004) Business Success in Rural Northern Ireland. RuralInnovation and Research Partnership, Queen’s University Belfast.28 Source: PwC: Doing Business in Northern Ireland, A guide forinward investors, Feb. 2003.

29 NITB 2002, Activities undertaken by visitors to NorthernIreland 2002. The above figures are derived from surveyestimates and extreme caution should be exercised in drawingconclusions, particularly where the smaller special interest andactivity products are concerned.

E24


annually in Northern Ireland. Therefore, theenvironment not only attracts tourism butcan also generate additional spending bytourists30 .

140 From survey evidence therefore itis clear that the quality of the natural ruralenvironment is an important element ofthe tourism industry in Northern Irelandand an influencing factor for many day-trippers and out–of-state visitors.Moreover, it is likely that the environmentwill become increasingly important to thetourism industry following the publicationof the Northern Ireland Tourist Board’s‘Strategic Framework for Action, 2004–200731 . Emphasising the importance ofthe environment, the Strategic Frameworkidentifies five projects (three of which arerural) based around on the naturalenvironment or built heritage. The projectsinclude:

• Giant’s Causeway and theCauseway Coast;

• Titanic / (Maritime) Belfast;• The walled City of Derry;• Christian Heritage/St Patrick; and• Mournes National Park.

141 Utilising the environment as atourist attraction, however, raises divisiveissues concerning access to thecountryside. Although a range ofenvironmental outdoor pursuits requireopen access to any uncultivated uplandfarmland, farmers in Northern Ireland areoften reluctant to grant access due topublic liability issues. On this basis itproves difficult to achieve the agreementof a number of farmers to developcommon access routes in a particulararea.

142 The environment is regarded bothas a resource for development andconservation. While the environment canmake an important contribution to thelocal economy, changes in agriculture andwider land use management have also

placed increasing pressures on the ruralenvironment most notably in relation tobiodiversity, natural landscapes and thebuilt heritage.

143 In Northern Ireland particularconcern exists in relation to the changes inagricultural practice over the last 30–40years and how this has impacted on thenatural environment. For instance, newagricultural technology has resulted in asignificant increase in the use ofchemicals on farmland32 . The use ofnitrogen fertiliser, herbicides andpesticides has led to a complex variety ofimpacts on a wide range of habitats andspecies.

144 In addition, there have been otherchanges associated with agriculturalintensification and widespread changes incropping practices. As a result of apreference for high yielding silage, amarked switch from the growing of Springsown to Autumn or Winter sown cerealswhich are of less value for wildlife hastaken place as well as a decrease in barleyand hay production. For example, in 1965approximately equal amounts of hay andsilage were made in Northern IrelandFarms but by 1995 only 130,000 tonnesof hay were being made compared to 6.2million tonnes of silage33 . Drainage andreseeding of damp grassland and wetpatches have also been major factors inthe drive for intensification. Major arterialdrainage works and field under-drainagehas been carried out and between 1947and 1977 half the agricultural land inNorthern Ireland has had some form ofdrainage34 .

145 Furthermore, there has been anincreased pressure for higher stocking

rates which, to some extent, has beenencouraged by CAP support payments forsheep and cattle within Less FavouredAreas (LFAs)35 . Sheep and cattle subsidieshave been paid on the basis of a headagepayment, which has in turn promotedincreased stocking densities. Sheepnumbers have risen from 870,000 in 1955to almost 2.5m by 1995 and the beef herdhas increased from 68,000 in 1960 to278,000 in 199536 . Overall, stockingdensities have increased from 0.91 to 1.4Grazing Livestock Units per forage hectarebetween 1960 and 199937. In the lowlandsit has been recognised that the tendencytowards farm specialisation has also led toa decline in mixed farming systems. Mixedfarming systems increase diversity of thevegetation and as a result a greater rangeof plants and animals that can besupported.

146 Given the changes in agriculturethrough continued agriculturalintensification and specialisation and theencroachment on uncultivated, semi-natural habitats which are often of highecological value a number of impacts onbiodiversity in Northern Ireland have beennoted. Indeed, to illustrate how land usehas changed rapidly throughout the 1990sTable 10 provides an overview of thechanging status of broad and primaryhabitats38 .

147 Taking changes in the amount anddistribution of certain bird species as aproxy indicator for the level of bio-diversity,the production of long term census dataon birds has shown that farmland birdpopulations and agricultural habitats haveundergone considerable decline over thelast 50 years. More particularly, thedecline of the bird population includes theloss of 100% of some arable species (e.g.

30 NITB (2003) A Strategic Framework for Action, 2004 –2007.31 NITB (2003) A Strategic Framework for Action, 2004 –2007.

32 Since 1947 the use of phosphate fertilisers has increased by300%, potash by 100% and nitrogen fertilisers by 1500%.Fertiliser purchasers have also increased from 87,000 tonnes in1974 to 188,000 tonnes in 1995 (The Rural Community Network,The Environment and the Farming Community in Northern Ireland,May 2000).33 The Rural Community Network, The Environment and theFarming Community in Northern Ireland, May 2000.34 Wilcock, D.N (1979) Post-War Land Drainage, Fertiliser Useand Environmental Impact in Northern Ireland, Journal ofEnvironmental Management (8) p. 137–149.

35 Donaghy, A and Mellon, C (2000) Fields for the Future –towards the conservation of farmland birds in Northern Ireland –RSPB, Sandy, second edition.36 The Rural Community Network, The Environment and theFarming Community in Northern Ireland, May 2000.37 Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland (1999) TheRural Development Programme in Northern Ireland – Proposalsand Opportunities for 2000–2006 – Preliminary Discussion Paper.Service, Belfast38 Cooper, A., McCann, T. & Meharg, M. (2002) Habitat change inthe Northern Ireland countryside: summary report of the NorthernIreland Countryside Survey 2000 – Environment and Heritage

E25


grey partridge and corn bunting) andgrassland species (e.g. corncrake), and a50% decrease in the numbers of Curlewand Lapwing as a result of widespreadfield drainage and land improvements39 .As well as bird species, numbers of bats,Irish Hare, butterflies and a range ofvascular plants have been affected byagricultural intensification and the use ofpesticides40 . The area of rough grazing inNorthern Ireland, an important habitat forwildlife, has also been declining in recentyears. Rough grazing areas have almosthalved between 1965 and 1995 and incounties Fermanagh and Tyrone thedecline was from 22 and 34% in 1995 to14 and 22% in 1995 respectively41. Inaddition, there is a danger that CAPreforms, in particular the process ofdecoupling, left unmanaged will result inthe further deterioration of the naturalrural environment.

148 In the uplands (peatlands andheather land) erosion caused byovergrazing and drainage as well as peatextraction is leading to landscape andhabitat degradation. In fact, in a study ofboglands in Northern Ireland it was notedthat 10% of blank bog has been drainedand 46% cut for fuel while 77.5% oflowland raised bog has been lost42 . The NICountryside Survey also identified lossesof 20% and 28% of wet mosaic and dryheath mosaic respectively between 1992and 199843 . While there is lowappreciation of the value of the upland andraised bog habitats to date given their lowagricultural productivity and limited

Table 9: Activities undertaken by visitors to Northern Ireland 2002

A YTIVITC A TISIVROFNOSAERLAUTC A GNITISIVTSLIHWNIDETAPICITRAPOSL

rebmuN % rebmuN %

smuesum/seitreporPcirotsiH

seitreporPcirotsiH 006,1 7.5 007,29 1.92

snoitibihxE/smuesuM 006,1 7.5 006,48 6.62

latotbuS 002,3 4.11 003,771 7.55

tnemnorivneehtotdetalerseitivitcA

tropStseretnIlaicepS 008,8 9.03 002,31 1.4

gniklaW 001,1 9.3 002,75 9.71

gnihsiFaeS 004 4.1 004,3 1.1

gnihsiFemaG 006 1.2 003,2 7.0

gnihsiFesraoC 006 1.2 007,3 2.1

floG 003,5 7.81 008,82 1.9

stropSdleiF 005 7.1 002,2 7.0

gnilcyC 006 1.2 003,8 6.2

nairtseuqE 002 7.0 008,4 6.1

latotbuS 001,81 6.36 009,321 0.04

rehtO

ygolaeneG 001,3 0.11 005,5 7.1

tnevElavitseF 000,4 0.41 003,11 6.3

latotbuS 001,7 52 008,61 3.5

latoT 004,82 %001 008,813 %001

economic return, the RCN maintains theseareas have the potential for wildlife andlandscape conservation within a framingcontext44 .

149 Compared to the rest of the UK,however, Northern Ireland has the greatestdensity of hedgerows with an average of17 kilometres of hedge per squarekilometre. Hedgerows are acknowledgedas an important habitat for vascular plans,birds and invertebrates. Priority birdspecies such as yellowhammer rely ongood quality hedgerows for nesting sitesand it is held that 170 species of birds,shrubs and wildflowers exist in Northern

Ireland’s hedgerows45 .

150 On the other hand, NorthernIreland has the lowest level of tree cover inEurope (about 6%) and most of the treecover (80%) consists of coniferousplantation. This low cover of broadleavedand mixed woodland seriously restricts therange of biodiversity46 . Ancient woodlandsare also largely located on estates whichhave limited public access. Some land,however, has been afforested and 74,000

39 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (1999) NorthernIreland Survey; Department of Environment (2002) NorthernIreland Biodiversity Strategy.40 Whilde, A (1993) Irish Red Data Book: 2 Vertebrates – HMSO;Dingerkus, S.K. (1997) The distribution and ecology of the Irishhare (Lepus timidus hibernicus) in Northern Ireland – PhD Thesis,The Queen’s University of Belfast; Preston,C.D, Pearman, D.A.,&Dines, T.D (2002) New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora – OxfordUniversity Press; and, Asher, J, Warren, M, Fox, R, Harding, P,Jeffcoate, G and Jeffcoate, S (2001) The Millennium Atlas ofButterflies in Britain and Ireland – Oxford University Press, Oxford.41 Donaghy, A. and Mellon, C. (1999) Fields for the Future –Towards the Conservation of Farmland Birds in Northern Ireland,RSPB.42 Cruickshank, M.M. & Tomlinson, R.W. (1988). Northern IrelandPeatland Survey – Department of the Environment NI (Countrysideand Wildlife Branch), Belfast43 Cooper, A., & McCann, T. (2001) The Northern IrelandCountryside Survey 2000 – Environment and Heritage Service,Belfast44 The Rural Community Network, The Environment and theFarming Community in Northern Ireland, May 2000.

45 Donaghy, A. and Mellon, C. (1999) Fields for the Future –Towards the Conservation of Farmland Birds in Northern Ireland,RSPB.

E26


Table 10: Examples of significant habitat changes from Northern IrelandCountryside Survey 2000

hectares is currently under trees but until1993, most planting consisted of exoticconifers in the uplands often on sensitivesites (for example, bogs). A change ofpolicy has now resulted in less state forestand more woodlands with broadland treesbeing planted in smaller private plots47

allowing greater scope for new woodlandsfor amenity and biodiversity purposes.

151 Water is a key element of life in therural landscape and of vital importance tothe economy with wildlife, human healthand recreation (tourism and fisheries)depending on the resource. However, dueto agricultural and wider developmentactivity in Northern Ireland there are anumber of problems in relation to waterquality:

• Increased fertiliser usageincreases the risk of run off intostreams, rivers and lakes and thereare currently between 400–500substantial pollution incidentsevery year in Northern Irelandresulting from agriculturalactivities. The current level ofusage of fertilisers, slurry andpesticides too close to waterwaysis detrimental to the aquaticenvironment and biodiversity; and

• Nitrates cause health problemsand eutrophication of lakes andstreams adversely affects plantsand animals. Northern Ireland’slakes, rivers and streams are highlyeutrophic with an estimated 60% ofthe nutrients coming fromagriculture whilst over 50% of soilshave a high phosphorus status.Eutrophication is considered to bethe most widespread threat togood water quality in NorthernIreland48. Diffuse pollution withphosphates in Lough Neagh inparticular, is of key concern with

agricultural constituting 58% of thephosphorous in the catchment49

leading the Lough to be classifiedas hypertrophic50 . Indeed, theimportance of addressing thisissue is now immediate with theagreement of the new EuropeanWater Framework Directive and theproposals from DARD and DoE todesignate all of Northern Ireland asa Nitrate Vulnerable Zone.

152 The effects of development andland management in rural areas have alsobeen reflected on the character and visualquality of the natural and built landscape.Such changes relate to the disappearanceof dry stonewalls and hedgerows and theNorthern Ireland Character Assessment2000 provides visual evidence of the on-

going erosion of distinctive landscapecharacter through development, landmanagement practices or simply neglect51.

153 Agricultural intensification has alsoimpacted on earthworks and fieldboundaries which have been removed tocreate larger more profitable fields as wellas deeper ploughing. Older agriculturalbuildings which have been perceived asinefficient or unnecessary have beenrendered redundant and abandoned, ordemolished. In fact, with regard to the builtheritage, a recent sample survey inNorthern Ireland indicated that of thevernacular buildings which existed in1909, 49% had gone without trace, 39%had been altered and were no longerrecognisable as vernacular and only 12%survived intact52.

IN P YRAMIR H TATIBA % LLAREVO

EGNAHC

8991-2991

S NOSAERDETSEGGU

ssargeyrlainnereP %32+ dnanoitacifisnetnilarutlucirgAmraffoytimrofinuretaerg

slamina

slaereC %03- evobasA

rehgihhtiwevisnetnissel.e.i(sdnalssarglarutlucirgarehtO)ytisrevidseiceps

%03- evobasA

dnalssargtewhcir-seicepS %73- esu-dnallarutlucirgA

gobteW %12- gnitnalprefinocdnagnittuctaeP

ciasomhtaehtewdnalpU %02- erusserpgnizargdesaercnI

ciasomhtaehyrD %72- erusserpgnizargdesaercnI

sworegdeH %4-)htgnel(

dedivorptoN

sknabhtraE %01- dedivorptoN

46 The Rural Community Network, The Environment and theFarming Community in Northern Ireland, May 2000.47 Forest Service 1999

51 Department of the Environment (2000) Northern IrelandLandscape and Character Assessment.52 Department of Regional Development (2001) Shaping OurFuture

48 Lough Neagh Advisory Committee (2002) Lough NeaghManagement Strategy – recommendations from the Lough NeaghAdvisory Committee 2002–2007 – Lough Neagh AdvisoryCommittee49 Anon (1999) Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy Proposals –June 1999, HMSO, Belfast.50 Lough Neagh Advisory Committee (2002) Lough NeaghManagement Strategy – recommendations from the Lough NeaghAdvisory Committee 2002–2007 – Lough Neagh AdvisoryCommittee

E27


Anderson et al (2004) it was concludedthat rural firms did not perform differentlyfrom similar urban firms in terms ofchange of employment (i.e. 1996-1999) orturnover (i.e. 1995–1998)53. Despite this,the costs of transportation andcommunication are shown to affect thecompetitiveness of rural firms in that bothinputs and products have to travel longerdistances which results in rural firmsincurring higher transaction costs. Inaddition, the report suggests that ruralfirms appear to be constrained by a lack ofsuitability skilled and professionally trainedstaff and compared to their urbancounterparts, rural firms tend to follow amore production orientated non-localmarket strategy making them more likely tobe in direct competition with internationalmanufacturers operating in low wageeconomies.

160 However, in analysing businesssuccess more closely, the report drew adistinction between remote and accessiblerural areas and noted the advantages ofan accessible rural location over urban orremote locations. It is held that theaccessible rural plant can recruitemployees, has cheaper premises and amore attractive environment. Against this,business services, and transport andcommunications cost more.

161 Focusing on investment Figure 23(taken from DETI’s report “The economicimpact of EU Enlargement on the NorthernIreland economy”) shows that the totalvalue of investment by externally ownedcompanies in the region has been inrelative decline since the peak of 1997/98when 530 investment announcementswere made54 . Analysis of Northern Irelandand UK performance highlights that thevalue of investment is roughly the same in2002/03 as it was at the start of theperiod. Therefore over the period, NorthernIreland has broadly retained the samemarket share of UK FDI.

Figure 22: VAT registered business in Northern Ireland by District Councils, 2002

Source: www.nomisweb.co.uk

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Agriculture

Other

A place to do business154 As shown earlier, employment inNorthern Ireland expanded rapidlythroughout the 1990s and into the 2000s.This is replicated in the business datawhere an additional 2,680 businessesexisted in 2002 compared to 1994. Thedominant growth sectors were,unsurprisingly, similar to employmentgrowth and were as follows:

• Real estate (62.4%);• Construction (31.3%);• Transport and communications

(28.4%); and• Finance (14.6%).

155 Few sectors contracted, thoughthere were less retail firms over theperiod, as a result of relatively fewNational UK chains displacing local smallerfirms. In addition, the number ofagricultural firms declined by 7.9% (1,460firms) over the period 1994 to 2002.However, agriculture remains the major VATregistered sector across the majority ofNorthern Ireland and the rural areas inparticular, this is reflected in Figure 22.

156 Despite this growth in total numberof businesses in Northern Ireland theoverall start-up rate remains low comparedto the UK average. In 2002, 26 VATregistered business were set-up per10,000 adults in Northern Irelandcompared to 36.4 in the UK.Correspondingly the de-registration rate

also remains below the UK average. Thisoverall lower level of business ‘activity’ isoften cited as a weakness in the NorthernIreland economy but it is worth noting thatsurvival rates are much higher.

157 The expansion in the number ofVAT registered businesses has beenunsurprising given the overall strength ofthe Northern Ireland economy since thestart of the 1990s but evidence suggestsa sectoral shift towards urban locatedprivate service businesses and away fromrural agriculture businesses is underway,and this, in general, reflects a moreurbanised business environment. This isalso relevant to future rural policy.

158 The DETI report Economicimplications of proposals to reducebankruptcy restrictions, highlights that interms of geography, bankruptcies havebeen widely distributed across NorthernIreland in recent years, with aconcentration of bankruptcies in the mainpopulation centres of Belfast and itssurrounding areas, as well as Derry, andNewry. In fact, 42 per cent of bankruptcieswere located in 6 of the 26 District CouncilAreas in Northern Ireland (Belfast, Newry& Mourne, Derry, Lisburn, North Down,and Ards). Interestingly only one of these 6District Council areas is ‘rural’.

159 Moreover, in a study of businesssuccess in rural Northern Ireland by

53 Anderson, D. Tyler, P, McCalion, T. Ayre, T and Matthews, D.(2004) Business Success in Rural Northern Ireland. RuralInnovation and Research Partnership, Queen’s University Belfast.54 See DETI’s report on “The economic impact of EU Enlargementon the Northern Ireland economy” for a more detailed discussion.

E28


Figure 23: Foreign Direct Investment in Northern Ireland (1990/01 = 100)

Source: Invest Northern Ireland

162 Northern Ireland was an attractiveplace to locate business in, during the late1990s, as evidenced by Figure 23. Thisgrowth reflects Northern Ireland’scomparative advantage in labour supply,costs (low wages and rent) and skills. It ishowever worth noting that the growth hascontracted sharply since 1999 with theadvent of the global slow-down. The othernotable ‘blips’ in the data in 1994/95 and1998/99 can be, at least in part,attributed to the prevailing politicalsituation.

163 Analysis of Foreign ownedbusinesses and employees at LocalGovernment District level in 2002highlights that although there have beensubstantial flows of foreign investment intothe region in recent years, the bulk islocated in the urban economy. Again thisis relevant to future rural policy.

164 Table 11 shows that in total, 77.2%of foreign owned businesses in NorthernIreland are located in the urban economy,with nearly half of the region’s total inBelfast alone. In addition, analysis ofemployment in foreign owned businessesshows that 67.8% is located in the urbaneconomy.

165 Intuitively, given that the ruraleconomy is dominated by agricultural firmsand limited foreign investment, it has ahigher proportion of firms with noemployees than the urban economy (seeFigure 24). Interestingly, over half of firmsin 2002 in the rural economy had noemployees (i.e. sole traders).

166 Despite growth in the number ofbusinesses and retaining the UK marketshare of investment, the Northern Irelandeconomy remains at a comparativedisadvantage in business output terms.Gross value added per head was over 22%lower than the UK average in 2002.

167 The lack of timely GDP datarestricts the analysis that can beundertaken. Nevertheless, the timelierquarterly index of manufacturing output isa useful indicator of output levels. This

indicator has shown significant strength, ata time of UK wide manufacturingcontraction.

168 The rapid growth from the mid1990s to the early 2000s was largelydominated by the engineering and alliedindustries sector that includes the ITindustry. Growth was remarkable and wasdriven mainly by the global technologyboom. This offered some growth potentialfor the rural economy as major employersoften located in purpose built ‘out of town’sites (though smaller firms remained urbanbased). Many firms served Americanbusinesses and location was not driven bythe need to be close to any local market.In addition, the firms offered relatively wellpaid employment and in many casesflexible working hours/conditions makingrural living more practical.

169 However, whilst this positiveoutlook should not be ignored, the smallnumber of major IT firms should be kept incontext as should the levelling out ofmanufacturing output from 2001 onwards.This typifies the risk for rural areasdependent on major FDI firms, theexamples of the Borders area in Scotlandand rural Wales with Semi-Conductorfactories remains an important marker. InScotland, FDI was targeted at rural areasand in many cases it was the semi-conductor industry that was attracted.However, with the down turn in the

electronics sector at the turn of thecentury, successive closure left hundredsunemployed

A Place to govern

Mapping rural activity acrossGovernment170 Given the breadth of the economic,social and environmental needs in ruralareas there are a range of governmentpolicies that are related to the rural sector.In the similar vein to social exclusion, thedevelopment of rural areas is a cross-cutting issue or “theme” which spans theresponsibilities of a range of Departmentsincluding, for example, the Department ofAgriculture and Rural Development,Department of Regional Development,Department of Enterprise, Trade andInvestment and the Department of theEnvironment. Therefore, to properlyunderstand the policy environment in whichrural areas operate, it is important to mapthe current activities and interventions ofDepartments in regard to rural areasacross Government.

171 In mapping the activities ofDepartments, however, a clear distinctionneeds to be drawn between those policiesthat are specifically targeted at rural areasand those that are developed on regionalbasis but will ultimately impact on ruralareas. To this end, the mapping exercisewhich we have carried out differentiates

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03

FD

I (I

nd

ex 1

99

0/0

1=

10

0)

UK

NI

E29


between explicit and implicit policyimpacts. This means that only where policydocuments specifically state that theinitiative is directed or targeted towardsrural areas and specific rural issues thatthe policy can be classified as explicit.Implicit then refers to those policies which,although not specifically targeting ruralareas, will impact on rural areas indirectly.

172 Notwithstanding the role of theDepartment of Agriculture and RuralDevelopment, from the mapping exercise itis possible to identify a core range ofactivities that aim to have an explicitimpact in rural areas. The activitiesimplemented by the Departments andAgencies are as follows:

• Office of the First and Deputy FirstMinister: Through the Programmefor Government (Budgets andPriorities) there is a clearcommitment to sustain rural lifeand the countryside for the future,to enhance local communities,particularly in the mostdisadvantaged urban and ruralareas, and address the particularimpact that the difficulties facingagriculture are having on ruralcommunities;

• Department for Employment andLearning: The Department iscurrently piloting the concept ofTargeted Initiatives in four areaswhich suffer multiple deprivationone of which is located in a ruralarea;

• Department of Enterprise, Tradeand Investment: The Departmentis co-ordinating R&D with DARDand facilitating knowledge andtechnology transfer to the agri-foodindustry. Rural development isconsidered as an area for crossdepartmental action to ensure DETIworks effectively with otherdepartments;

• Invest NI: The Agency aims tohighlight the skills andopportunities available in local

rural areas within Northern Irelandto potential investors with a view toattracting investment. Invest NI iscurrently reviewing its propertypolicy which currently results inhaving available industrial land inall 26 local authority areas. Inaddition, the agency aims topromote business start ups in ruralareas;

• Northern Ireland Tourist Board:The Tourist Board is seeking topromote the variety anddistinctiveness of NorthernIreland’s natural resources – ruralareas and lakelands – which offeropportunities for tourism growth.Linked to this is the concept ofactivity tourism which bringssignificant benefits with regard toregionality and seasonality. TheTourist Board also implements theNatural Resource Rural TourismInitiative under PEACE II that istargeted at developing tourism indisadvantaged rural areas;

• Department of Culture, Arts andLeisure: Having an important rolein inland waterways, theDepartment aims to develop fishproduction, angling and otherwater-based recreation projectsthat will result in a tangible benefit

to local rural economies andincrease tourism potential;

• Department of Education: Inrecognising that small schoolsmake an important contribution totheir local communities, theDepartment aims to ensure thatrural communities have access toa network of strong rural schools.The Department lists a number offactors including projectedenrolments, proximity andaccessibility of neighbouringschools, social, demographic,economic and community aspectsof the proposed change and thebest educational interests of thechildren in making decisionsregarding amalgamations orclosures. The Department alsofunds the Cross-Border RuralChildcare Project that aims toidentify and address childcareneeds in rural communities on bothsides of the border;

• Department of the Environment:Within the Department, theEnvironmental Policy Group‘sobjective is to developenvironmental policy and legislationwhich protects, conserves andenhances the natural environmentand built heritage. Sustainable

Figure 24: Breakdown of Northern Ireland businesses by employee size, 2002

Source: IDBR

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 1-19 20-49 50+

Rural

Urban

NI

E30


development is also a key themeand the Department is working onthe development andimplementation of a NorthernIreland Sustainable DevelopmentStrategy;

• Environment and Heritage Service– the EHS aims to protectelements in the rural landscape,contributing to a sense of identityand place that can stimulateeconomic regeneration and are animportant focus for educational

Table 11: Foreign owned businesses and employees, 2002

Note: * = confidentialitySource: Invest NI

and tourist visitors;

• Department for RegionalDevelopment: Rural areas areplaced central to the RegionalDevelopment Strategy 2025 andthe strategy aims to develop anattractive and prosperous ruralarea, based on a balanced andintegrated approach to thedevelopment of town, village andcountryside. In PPS 14 theDepartment also sets out keyissues for SustainableDevelopment in the Countryside forconsultation. In addition, theDepartment is currently supportingand developing rural transportservices through the RuralTransport Fund;

• Roads Service: Roads Service iscommitted to repair or make safeserious road surface defects onboth heavily and light traffickedrural roads;

• Department for SocialDevelopment: The Department iscommitted towards funding a rangeof projects and programmes at thelocal level in rural areas includingcommunity developmentregeneration projects,environmental improvementschemes, neighbourhood renewalprojects and town centreregeneration projects;

• Northern Ireland HousingExecutive: Through the publicationof a report entitled Delivering RuralCommitments the HousingExecutive has outlined a range ofcommitments for rural housingincluding assessing housing need,linking rural housing and health,improving housing conditions andquality. The Housing Executive hasalso extended its ‘Group Repair’Grant to rural areas, helpingimprove the external appearance oflocal housing;

D TCIRTSI C LICNUO B SESSENISU % E SEEYOLPM %

mirtnA 22 5.3 069,1 6.2

sdrA 01 6.1 577 1

hgamrA 5 8.0 * *

anemyllaB 9 4.1 018,2 8.3

yenomyllaB 3 5.0 * *

egdirbnaB 6 9.0 012 3.0

tsafleB 603 84 032,03 8.04

sugrefkcirraC 31 2 599 3.1

hgaereltsaC 41 2.2 014,3 6.4

eniareloC 9 4.1 064,1 2

nwotskooC 3 5.0 * *

novagiarC 04 3.6 547,7 4.01

yrreD 91 3 064,3 7.4

nwoD 2 3.0 * *

nonnagnuD 51 4.2 527 1

hganamreF 5 8.0 * *

enraL 6 9.0 * *

ydavamiL 4 6.0 * *

nrubsiL 55 6.8 004,5 3.7

tlefarehgaM 4 6.0 * *

elyoM 1 2.0 * *

enruoM&yrweN 02 1.3 033,4 8.5

yebbanwotweN 43 3.5 552,3 4.4

nwoDhtroN 91 3 018 1.1

hgamO 8 3.1 012 3.0

enabartS 5 8.0 * *

IN 736 0.001 571,47 0.001

E31


access to a faster growing workingage population than the urbanareas. Consequently, the urbanareas of Northern Ireland willeventually experience a relativedecline in their working agepopulation before the rural areas;

• Relatively poorer educationalattainment in rural areas: areaswhere at least half of thepopulation have no qualifications,are located in the Western ruralregions and Belfast. In addition,those areas with over 19% of theirpopulation qualified to a degreelevel or above are concentrated inthe BMA and Coleraine;

• The housing market strongest inurban Northern Ireland: thehousing market in Northern Irelandhas continued to strengthen, withthe average house price doublingover the period Q4 1995 to Q12004. However, the average houseprice in rural Northern Ireland wasonly £94,318 in 2003 Q4compared to £129,275 for urbanareas;

• An increasing demand for ruralhousing: the demand for housing inrural areas has increasedsignificantly with the greatestconcentration of planningapplications being located in thedistrict council areas surroundingGreater Belfast (i.e. the BelfastTravel to Work Area). However, inrecent years the highest number ofsingle dwellings approved in thecountryside has been inFermanagh, Newry and Mourne andArmagh;

• Rural housing demands haveplaced pressures on thecountryside environment: singledwellings in the countryside canled to the deterioration of the watersupply from increased septic tankuse, deterioration of rurallandscape character, loss of habit,

• Department of Health, SocialServices and Public Safety(DHSSPS); the Department alongwith DARD part fund the RuralStress Helpline. The Departmenthas also published a reportexamining the inequalities in healthand social care in Northern Irelandthat are relevant to the NewTargeting Social Need (New TSN)policy, including the base report ofthe ‘Inequalities MonitoringSystem’. The overview alsodocuments comparisons betweenpeople living in rural and non-ruralareas focusing on a range ofissues such as mortality rates, lifeexpectancy, cancer incident rates,lung cancer and access times to alltypes of facilities includingopticians, dentists, A&Edepartments, and disabilityoutpatient services55 ; and

• Department of Finance andPersonnel (DFP); the main aim ofDFP is to ensure the appropriateand effective use of resources andservices and that theGovernment’s priorities and budgetis taken forward. The Department,therefore, does not have aparticular rural focus.

Concluding comments173 This section has set out in detailthe economic conditions prevailing atglobal and NI levels, and thereafterattempted to summarise the ruralperspective of NI as a place to live, work,do business and be governed. In view ofthe level of detail presented there is aneed to summarise the main findings andto set out how these have justified or willjustify in future the rationale forGovernment intervention in rural areas.This analysis is set out in Section V: TheRationale for Rural Policy Intervention.

174 The main findings from the analysisare:

• Consistent GDP growth: As awhole, it is estimated that NorthernIreland’s GDP growth will remainconsistent until 2005, roughlymatching the rate of growth of theUK economy;

• Northern Ireland economicstrengths: Throughout early 2004,the Northern Ireland economyexperienced record high levels ofemployment and house prices,record low levels of unemployment,and strengthening businessconfidence;

• Underlying weaknesses: NorthernIreland’s economy is still heavilyreliant on the public sector and thewholesale and retail trade sectorfor employment. Furthermore,Northern Ireland’s GVA per head isonly 77% of the UK average and itseconomic activity rate is the lowestof any UK region, and the numberof business start-ups in NorthernIreland remain behind the UKaverage;

• Dependence on the agriculturesector: Over a third of NorthernIreland’s VAT registeredbusinesses are found in theagricultural sector compared to theUK average of 8.8%. The sectoralmix of both Northern Ireland’sbusinesses and employment hashistorically made the rural economya vital component of overallperformance;

• Faster growing rural population:48.5% of the population can bedefined as rural in 2002, comparedto the remaining 51.5% which wereurban. Rural Northern Ireland hashigher live birth rates per 1,000 ofthe population than Urban NorthernIreland; and has lower death ratesper 1,000 of the population relativeto urban. Therefore the rural areasof Northern Ireland will have

55 DHSSPS (2004) Equalities and inequalities in health andsocial care in Northern Ireland: A Statistical Overview

E32


fragmentation of agricultural landand increased traffic levels andassociated pollution;

• Rural housing also providesopportunities: the rural communitycan utilise their land assets andexercise their right to live in theopen countryside. An increasingrural population can also increasedemand for rural services andstimulate community activity;

• A lack of access to services: inrelation to access to transport,access to ATM machines, generalretail outlets and access to wastemanagement services, the ruralcommunity of Northern Ireland issignificantly disadvantaged;

• A healthy communityinfrastructure and store of socialcapital: Given the number ofcommunity groups that exist inrural areas for a wide range ofdifferent purposes, a healthycommunity infrastructure has beenestablished. In addition, measuredin terms of the level of crimeexperienced or perceived fromplace to place, rural areas alsocontain a rich resource of socialcapital;

• Influx of urban dwellers ischallenging the sense ofcommunity in rural areas: someareas of the countryside arebecoming ‘lifestyle areas’,challenging the sense ofcommunity and place in rural areasand reducing the opportunities toinvest in the social capital;

• Implicit but strong communitydivisions: although there is a richresource of social capital andcommunity infrastructure in ruralareas and ‘peacelines’ may only bea feature of urban areas,community divisions in rural areasstill remain strong andcommunities have tended to place

reliance on established family orpersonal connections;

• Low economic activity rate:Northern Ireland’s economicactivity rate was some 7percentage points below the UKaverage in 2003. In general, thefurther away from Belfast, thelower the economic activity ratebecomes. However, in general therural areas (with larger proportionsof their population at working age)have economic activity rates higherthan the two cities;

• Fast employment growth in ruralNorthern Ireland: Analysis showsthat employment growth on thewhole, was faster in the ruraleconomy than that of the urbaneconomy. However, further analysisof employment growth by LGDshows that the economies whichexperienced growth below that ofthe Northern Ireland average werepredominantly made up of the ruralareas. Those areas with thehighest growth over the period,tended to be located around theBMA and the southern border withthe Republic of Ireland;

• Convergence in unemploymentrates: it must be noted thatregardless of rural areas’ relativelabour market disadvantagescompared to urban areas, thelabour markets in these rural areashave improved considerably overthe last decade. Overall, recentimprovements have resulted in aconvergence of unemploymentrates across the region and whencompared to the UK average.

• Rural areas have less favourablelabour markets: lower economicactivity rates and high levels ofunemployment and long-termunemployment, combined with thelow levels of job density suggestthat the rural areas of Northern

Ireland have “less favourablelabour markets”. However, theevidence also suggests that theremay be relatively prosperous ruralareas located in and around theBMA and the areas surroundingLough Neagh, and relatively poorerareas around the periphery.However economic activity rates forboth males and females in ruralareas have fallen over the periodsuggesting that their labourmarkets have still perhaps sparecapacity;

• Rural economies are unfavourablystructured: Rural economies havean above average dependence onthe relatively low-value addedsectors of agriculture andmanufacturing. Analysis suggeststhat the most productive regions inthe UK have moved away frommanufacturing sectors and intoservices sectors. Therefore, thestructure of the rural economy maybe undesirable for future high andsustained economic growth;

• Mixed fortunes for agriculture: thenumbers employed in agriculturehave been declining steadily since1990. Over 100 of NorthernIreland’s 582 wards rely on thissector for over 8% of employment,96 of which are defined as ‘rural’.However farm incomes also gainedfrom trends in currency, lowinterest rates and EU reforms;

• A decline in manufacturingemployment: manufacturingemployment in Northern Irelandhas been contracting for 13consecutive quarters. Inemployment terms only 4 of the 13sub-sectors have lost jobs in thelast decade, with textilesdominating the job loss total.Indeed without the job losses inTextiles, manufacturing would haveexpanded by 8,500 jobs over thelast decade. Given manufacturing

E33


seems to be more concentrated inNorthern Ireland’s rural economy,any future job losses could affectthe rural areas more than theurban areas;

• Limited private sectoropportunities: given the fact thatthese sectors are sounderrepresented in NorthernIreland’s rural economy, anyopportunity for rapid, sustained,high value added growth is at bestlimited;

• Tourism concentrated in urbanareas: Over the period 1995 to2001 tourism employment inNorthern Ireland grew by 41.2%.Comparing growth in the ruraleconomy (20.6%) with that of theurban economy (68.6%) highlightsthe uneven distribution of therecent improvement in tourism. Inrelation to tourism spend, againthe urban economy outperformedthe rural economy, with £213.1mand £181.8m respectively;

• The natural environment providesa valuable contribution to thelocal economy: based on anassessment of employment, it isestimated that over 64,000 jobsare directly supported by theenvironment in Ireland in thepublic, private, voluntary,agriculture and academic sectors;

• The natural environment is a keytourist attraction in NorthernIreland: The majority of the twentymost popular visitor attractions arenatural environments or builtheritage visitor centres and forthose who visit Northern Ireland fora holiday or leisure activity, one ofthe main reasons for doing so is toparticipate in activities that rely onthe environment. However, inutilising the environment as atourist attraction, this raisesdivisive issues concerning accessto the countryside;

• The rural environment is underpressure most notably in theareas of biodiversity, naturallandscapes and the built heritage.Farmland bird populations andagricultural habitats haveundergone considerable declineover the last 50 years, soil erosionis becoming an increasing problem,diffuse pollution is causing awidespread threat to good waterquality, and the distinctivelandscape character is underpressure due to development, landmanagement practices or simplyneglect;

• Business starts and bankruptciesconcentrated in urban areas:evidence suggests a sectoral shifttowards urban located privateservice businesses and away fromrural agriculture businesses isunderway, and this, in general,reflects a more urbanised businessenvironment. Bankruptcies havebeen widely distributed acrossNorthern Ireland in recent years,however the concentration ofbankruptcies is in the mainpopulation centres of Belfast andits surrounding areas, as well asDerry, and Newry;

• Falling FDI: the total value ofinvestment by externally ownedcompanies in the region has beenin relative decline since the peak of1997/98. However, NorthernIreland has broadly retained thesame market share of UK FDI. Inaddition, the bulk of FDI is locatedin the urban economy;

• Fresh challenges for agriculture:the sector faces a number ofchallenges including, new supportarrangements, EU Enlargement,broadening the market base /increasing value added activity,animal health and bio-security. Theindustry will need to overcome thechallenges above and evolve into amore competitive and successful

sector. The sector domesticallymay have to restructure, leading toa further reduction in the numberof full-time farm. In addition, therewill pressure to find off-farmsources of income, especially giventhat the textiles sector (often asource of a second income tofarming households) is in declineacross Northern Ireland;

• Further decline in manufacturing:forecasts show a continued declinein employment levels, inmanufacturing in Northern Ireland.Based on the manufacturingprojections, 8 of the 17 LGDsclassified as rural are forecast toshed more manufacturing jobs as apercent of the working agepopulation than the NorthernIreland average;

• Tourism employment is forecast togrow at a fairly stable rate overthe forecast period: the challengefor the rural economy is to build ontheir existing facilities andattractions and to develop newareas of growth;

• Future of public sector uncertain:It is estimated that an additional20,000 jobs could be created,mainly in health and education.This may be enhanced bydecentralisation, however, theGershon Review and Review ofPublic Administration (RPA) point tooverall reductions in employment;

• Limited opportunity in privateservices: the rural economy isunderrepresented in employment inthese sectors. Future trends in FDIare likely to be concentratedaround service sector activity.However this type of FDI is likely tofavour city centre locations andareas where a trained qualifiedworkforce is readably available;

• The successful firm: will move fromlow-tech production to innovation

E34


based activity, where R&D will be akey element. In addition, it will bewell connected and IT enabled. Itwill move from the local market tohigh value added activities in nichemarkets. Furthermore, itsworkforce will well educated andhighly skilled. The challenge torural policy in the future will be toattract these “successful firms”;and

• A range of GovernmentDepartments are intervening inrural areas: Given the breadth ofthe economic, social andenvironmental needs in rural areasthere are a range of governmentpolicies that are related to the ruralsector. The development of ruralareas is a cross-cutting issue or“theme” that spans theresponsibilities of a range ofDepartments. In examining theactivities of Departments, however,a clear distinction needs to bedrawn between those policies thatare specifically targeted at ruralareas and those that aredeveloped on regional basis butwill ultimately impact on ruralareas.

F1

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Study on Rural Policy Appendix F

Appendix F: Mapping Rural Interventions

DEPT/AGENCY

Office of theFirst and DeputyFirst Minister

CommunityRelationsCouncil

EXPLICIT

Programme for Government• An important aspect of our economy and society

that has been neglected in the past is that in therural areas. This covers not only agriculture,forestry and fisheries, but also the economy inour rural towns and support for rural society. Weneed to integrate our approach here, creating newskills and new job opportunities while ensuringthat public services are accessible. Only in thisway can we sustain the rural life and ourcountryside for the future.

• Action against poverty and supporting communitymeasures in both urban and rural settings, aswell as actions on community relations and forcultural diversity.

• Sustaining and enhancing local communities,particularly those in the most disadvantagedurban and rural areas.

• Rural areas, we will address the particular impactthat the difficulties facing agriculture are havingon rural communities.

• We will also work with our Southern partners todevelop and enhance different sectors of therural economy and rural society on a cross-borderbasis, in particular under a rural regenerationmeasure under INTERREG III.

• Under the new Rural Development Programme,target disadvantage and continue to give priorityto projects, programmes and strategies whichaddress identified needs aimed at equalisingeconomic and social opportunities across ourrural areas.

• In the rural areas, falling incomes in recent yearshave increased the difficulties of ruralcommunities and fishing ports. There is a need toassist the modernisation of the agriculturalindustry and to promote other sources of incomegeneration in the rural economy. We need tosupport farmers and others who choose to live inthe country, as well as addressing access topublic services, such as schools, hospitals andtransport.

IMPLICIT

Programme for Government• Our vision is also of a dynamic,

competitive economy, creatingopportunities for all in a wide range ofsectors, with many more skilled jobs inthe new knowledge-based economy

• We will combat social exclusion andpoverty, with a particular emphasis onchildren

• We will work to ensure that everyone hasthe opportunity to access decent,affordable housing in the tenure of theirchoice

• We will work to reduce preventabledisease, ill-health and health inequalities.

• We will ensure that all our young peoplehave the skills and qualifications to gainemployment in a modern economy

• We will work to ensure that ourcommunications and transportinfrastructure is of the standard that oureconomy requires

• We will work to ensure the protection andenhancement of the environment

Strategic Plan• To support local people in building a

shared, inclusive and peaceful society.• To promote the mainstreaming of

community relations work at bothcommunity and institutional level.

• To manage the grant aiding activities andother services of the CommunityRelations Council in an effective, efficientand economical way.

F2


Corporate Strategy 2004–2007• The Department aims to develop fish production,

angling and other water-based recreation projectsthat will result in a tangible benefit to local ruraleconomies and increase tourism potential.

• The Department recognises that small ruralschools make an important contribution to theirlocal communities and that the rural nature andthe structure of education will always require asignificant number of small rural schools – thisensures equality of opportunity and accessibilityto education. The Current policy is to ensure thatrural communities have access to a network ofstrong rural schools with the accommodation,equipment and range of teaching expertiseneeded to provide a broad and balancedcurriculum. However the policy does not precludeschool closures. Amalgamation or closure wouldbe considered in certain circumstances andconsideration needs to be given to a number offactors including projected enrolments, proximityand accessibility of neighbouring schools and alsosocial, demographic, economic and communityaspects of the proposed change; the overridingconsideration in any proposed closure is what isin the best educational interests of the children.

• The Cross-Border Rural Childcare Project, partly

Corporate Strategy 2004-2007• ‘A confident, creative, informed and

vibrant community’, our vision is a societythat develops and flourishes, becomingmore informed and proud of its culturalidentity, a society where we unlock ourlatent creativity, to become even morevibrant and confident in the future.

• The Department is currently implementinga Community Sports Programme whichaims to target communities in the mostdeprived rural and urban areas.

Arts Council• The arts lie at the heart of endeavours to

create a new NI and are sources ofrenewal and growth. Our plan provides theframework within which we will place thearts at the centre of the regionseconomic, social and cultural life. Thearts council believes that the arts lie atthe heart of endeavours to create a newNI, by generating employmentopportunities; improving the quality of lifefor all citizens; supporting children andyoung people to realise their creativepotential; contributing to the health andwell being of the wider community; andpromoting tolerance and respect in thecontext of cultural pluralism

• We will work together as partners ineducation and youth services to ensure ahigh standard of education for all childrenand young people, which will put them atthe centre of education, motivate them,build their confidence and enrich theirlives, and provide the foundation for astrong and vibrant economy.

Department ofCulture, Artsand Leisure

Arts Council ofNorthern Ireland

Department ofEducation

F3


funded by the Department, aims to identify andaddress childcare needs in rural communities onboth sides of the border in response to theincrease in female employment participationrates in rural areas and the particular difficultiesfaced by families with children in those areasaccessing quality childcare.

• The Department has also commissioned researchon opening community facilities to the community.It is understood that the socio-economic conditionof the area in which the school is located alsoinfluences the nature and extent of thecommunity use of its facilities. In areas of highdisadvantage the school is often one of the mainpublic resources available for use by thecommunity. It is held that this may also be thecase in more rural areas.

• In regard to pre-school education in NorthernIreland, the Department aims to give parents thewidest possible choice of settings. It isunderstood that the extent of the choice availablewill vary depending largely on the population foran area. Large cities and towns will offer all ormost of the available types of statutory provisionas well as voluntary/private settings; at the otherextreme, isolated rural areas may have only onesetting.

• The Department also recognises thatgeographical distribution, particularly in ruralareas, may also prove difficult for the Irish-medium sector in meeting the minimum 8children in their immediate pre-school yearnecessary for a playgroup to receive PEAGfunding. The Department aims to ensure as far aspossible that provision is available in isolatedrural areas.

Building on Progress, Budget 2003–2006• The Department is developing Reform Plans

including one for the Youth Service to promoteopen and equal access to Youth Service activitiesfor all young people, with particular reference toSection 75 groups and young people in ruralareas.

Strategic Plan 2004–2007• The Department is currently piloting the concept

of Targeted Initiatives in four areas which suffermultiple deprivation one of which is in a rural area(Strabane). These initiatives are testing new waysof helping the unemployed and the economicallyinactive to address their personal barriers toemployment. This is being done in partnershipwith other statutory organisations and local

Strategic Plan 2004-2007• Wider aim to ‘promote learning, to

prepare people for work and to supportthe economy’ refers to whole of NorthernIreland but will also naturally benefit ruralareas.

• Department aims to improve essentialskills of literacy and numeracy amongstthe adult population and which will

Department forEmployment andLearning

F4


community interests, represented by aStakeholders’ Forum in each area.

Regional innovation strategy for NI• DARD-commissioned research to be conducted by

new DARD NDPB, and retained DARD emergencycore. Independent expert advisory group to beestablished to advise on DARD funded R&D.

• College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise(within DARD) to be responsible for knowledgeand technology transfer to the agri-food industry.New NDPB to maximise the commercial potentialof research in agri-food.

• Development of further life-long learningprogrammes to encourage diversification in ruralareas.

Corporate Strategy 2002–2005• Rural development is considered as an area for

cross departmental action to ensure DETI workseffectively with other departments to deliver theProgramme for Government.

• The Department considers that tourism continuesto be a high priority given the industry’s potentialto contribute significantly to growth in the localeconomy and most particularly the rural economy.

Invest NI Corporate Plan• Invest NI aims to highlighting the skills and

opportunities available in local areas withinNorthern Ireland to potential investors will becritical to attracting investment to rural areas.Despite encouragement to locate in more ruralareas, it is held that investors (in the knowledge-based sectors of software, contact centres andtelecommunications) have largely chosenlocations in or close to the Belfast andLondonderry conurbations because their projectsrequire a large critical mass of skilled peoplewithin a limited travel-to-work area and certainlifestyle, entertainment and educational facilities.

NITB Corporate Plan, Strategic Plan• Activity tourism brings significant benefits with

regard to regionality and seasonality. In addition,activity tourists tend to be high spending. Forexample, golf trips generate around £13–14m ayear for Northern Ireland. The variety anddistinctiveness of Northern Ireland’s natural

provide a particular focus on the longterm unemployed and those living indeprived areas.

Regional innovation strategy for NI• To create a culture and environment

within which Northern Ireland will prosperby using its knowledge, skills and capacityto innovate.

Invest NI Corporate Plan• To accelerate economic development in

Northern Ireland, applying expertise andresources to encourage innovation andachieve business success, increasingopportunity for all within a renewedculture of enterprise.

• To Promote Innovation in all its Aspects,Stimulate Higher levels of R&D, Designand Improve Knowledge Transfer

• To Achieve Higher Levels of Growth byIndigenous and Externally-OwnedBusinesses

• To Promote a More Enterprising Culture inNorthern Ireland so as to raise the overallLevel and Quality of Business Starts.

• To Attract High-Quality, Knowledge-BasedInvestment from Outside Northern Ireland

Corporate Plan• NITB has a key objective to spread the

benefits of tourism across the Provinceand to extend the season. NITB willcommission a comprehensive review oflocal support and delivery mechanismswith the aim of achieving a fully integrated

Department ofEnterprise,Trade andInvestment(DETI)

Invest NorthernIreland (InvestNI)

Northern IrelandTourist Board

F5


resources – our rural areas and lakelands – offeropportunities for tourism growth. We will thereforefocus on current strengths and build futurewinners.

• Implementation of the Natural Resource RuralTourism Initiative under PEACE II that is targetedat developing tourism in disadvantaged ruralareas, capitalising on our unique natural andcultural resources.

DoE Corporate plan 2004–2006, BusinessPlan 2004–2005

• The Department’s aim is to improve the quality oflife in Northern Ireland, now and for the future, bypromoting a better and safer environment andsupporting effective and efficient localgovernment. Sustainable development is a keytheme and the Department is working on thedevelopment and implementation of a NorthernIreland Sustainable Development Strategy.

• Within the Department, the Environmental PolicyGroup‘s objective is to develop environmentalpolicy and legislation which protects, conservesand enhances the natural environment and builtheritage. The Group also has responsibility fordeveloping the Government’s SustainableDevelopment Strategy in Northern Ireland.

Environment and Heritage ServiceCorporate Plan

• Protecting monuments in care, scheduledmonuments, archaeological sites and listedbuildings, including the few remaining thatchedhouses, are familiar elements in our rural andurban landscape, contributing to a sense ofidentity and place. They can stimulate economicregeneration and are an important focus foreducational and tourist visitors.

Department ofthe Environment

Environment andHeritage Service

Department ofFinance andPersonnel

support structure for the industry at locallevel - both urban and rural.

• to promote te exchange of knowledge and

Raising Service Standards, AStrategy for Business Improvement2003- 2006

• Department states it will incorporateRural Proofing in its policy processes. Itwill review its current policies andpractices to ensure that it is in fullcompliance and will identify andimplement any changes needed.

F6


Regional Development Strategy forNorthern Ireland 2025

• Rural Northern Ireland is a key chapter in theRegional Development Strategy for NorthernIreland 2025. The strategy notes it is importantthat the economic and social benefits of a morestable and prosperous Northern Ireland aretranslated into a balanced and sustaineddevelopment right across the region. The overallaim of the strategy is to develop an attractive andprosperous rural area, based on a balanced andintegrated approach to the development of town,village and countryside, in order to sustain astrong and vibrant rural community, contributingto the overall well-being of the region as a whole.

Department ofHealth, SocialServices andPublic Safety

Department forRegionalDevelopment

Building on Progress, Budget 2003-2006

• Rural Proofing requires a joined upapproach across all departments toensure that the needs of ruralcommunities are taken into account. TheDepartment also recognises that wastemanagement, nitrate content and waterquality is an issue were the farmingcommunity cannot be expected alone tocarry the cost of achieving EU standards.

Corporate Plan 2004-2006• While the Department aims to health and

social well being of all the people ofNorthern Ireland in the provision of healthand social care services and in thecommunity through nursing, social workand other professional services noexplicit reference to rural areas orcommunities is mentioned in theCorporate Plan.

Service Delivery Agreement /Corporate Plan 2003-04

• Health Partnerships have now beenestablished in each HSS Board area.These partnerships are developing long-term health improvement plans toaddress the identified health and wellbeing needs of people in their areas.Effective partnership is critical to thesuccess of health development initiativesand the Investing for Health Strategycontains a framework of action that isbased on partnership working betweenDepartments, public bodies, localcommunities, voluntary bodies, DistrictCouncils and social partners.

F7


Sustainable Development in theCountryside

• In PPS 14 the Department sets out key issues forSustainable Development in the Countryside forconsultation. The PPS will replace the provisionsof the 1993 Rural Strategy, and set out the mainplanning considerations which, Department ofEnvironment, Planning Service takes into account(along with extant policies in the 1993 Strategy)in the assessment of planning applications andthe preparation of development plans. Theconsultation period on Sustainable Developmentin the Countryside is as part of the ongoingimplementation of the Regional DevelopmentStrategy (RDS).

New TSN Action Plan April 2001 – March2003

• The Department is currently supporting anddeveloping rural transport services through theRural Transport Fund including rural bus subsidyarrangements and rural community transportpartnerships. The Department has also aimed toensure the provision of public water supply mainlyin remote rural communities which previously didnot have a supply.

Corporate Plan 2003–2006 and BusinessPlan 2003–2004

• Roads Service aims to repair or make safe, bythe end of the day following the day of detection,serious road surface defects on both heavily andlight trafficked rural roads.

• In the coming year the road service has proposedto invest money in to many rural areas inNorthern Ireland for example the completion of a£1.6 million road widening scheme at Springwell,£4 million is to be spent on roads in the Omagharea, £3.6 million to be invested on roads in theArmagh area and £550,000 to be invested onAntrim roads.

Corporate Plan 2004–2006• The Department is currently implementing the

Neighbourhood Renewal scheme in RegionalTowns and Cities. Using the four principles foridentifying Neighbourhood Renewal Areas, whichwere set out in ’People and Place’, fifteenNeighbourhood Renewal Areas in towns and citiesoutside Belfast and Londonderry have beenestablished. For example, in the last two years,DSD has committed in excess of £2.5million offunding to regeneration projects in the Strabanearea. These include £150,000 for Environmental

Corporate Plan 2004–2006• In addition, the Corporate Plan

acknowledges that while the percentageof the unfit housing stock in NorthernIreland has reduced, the overall figuredisguises those areas where theunfitness rate is much higher for examplein isolated rural areas.

Roads Service

Department forSocialDevelopment

F8


Northern IrelandHousingExecutive

Improvement schemes, £750,000 forNeighbourhood Renewal projects, £1 million forTown Centre Regeneration projects and £460,000for Sports Facilities.” In addressing the supportand improvement of urban estates andneighbourhoods, Corporate Plan states that theimplementation of the Neighbourhood RenewalStrategy urban regeneration initiative hassimultaneous spin-off in benefits for rural areas.

Delivering Rural Commitments and Placesfor People – A Rural Housing Policy Review

• The Housing Executive has outlined a range ofcommitments for rural housing includingassessing housing need, linking rural housing andhealth, improving housing conditions and quality.

• Darkley village in South Armagh has received£750,000 for a makeover. The Housing Executivehas extended its “Group Repair” Grant to ruralareas, helping improve the external appearanceof local housing. The Group Repair scheme inDarkley will be completed in three phasesinvolving over 80 properties. The work willimprove the outside appearance of thesedwellings as well as enhancing the overallenvironment of this tranquil village.

• The Housing Executive has started the finalphase of demolition of flats in North Street,Newry.

• The work will bring about the clearance of 66empty flats in Blocks C, D, E and F. The clearedsite will be placed for sale on the open market.Improvement work will commence later this yearto the remaining Blocks B, G and O. This willcomplete the Housing Executive’s plans toimprove housing accommodation in North Street,and provide a better living environment for ourtenants.

G1

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Study on Rural Policy Appendix G

Appendix G: Learning from elsewhere – Case Studies

Environmental Capital as aDriver of Rural Development1.1 With a view to learning from theexperiences from elsewhere, two casestudies have been selected to show howthe environment can be a real resourcefor economic development. The casestudies represent lessons which couldapply to rural Northern Ireland fromEngland and Germany. In particular thecase studies illustrates examples ofgaining advantage from:

• Environment’s capacity to attractvisitors; and

• Environment as a resource forsupporting economic activity.

Environment’s capacity toattract visitors – English CaseStudy1.2 An English example of localdevelopment founded substantially on theattractiveness of the local environment forpotential entrepreneurs is provided by thedistrict of Tynedale in Northumberland1 . Aswathe of that largely rural county – acorridor extending some 10 to 30 mileswest of the Tyneside conurbation – isbeing transformed in a way that dependsheavily on the quality of its natural andbuilt environment, coupled with theexcellent east-west communications thatlink it to the conurbation and thence tonational and international markets.

1.3 What has frequently happened isthat many professional, managerial andtechnical employees of Tyneside firmshave moved out of the conurbationattracted by the landscape and attractivesmall towns and villages along the Tynevalley and by the quality of cultural lifethere. At first these workers havecommuted to the city on a daily basis, butin due course some have set up on theirown, often benefiting from the growingtrend of outsourcing that is linked to thenew ICT environment. Some of these start-ups have grown to become establishedmicro-businesses or more substantialsmall firms and today the area has twiceas many small businesses per head thanthe national average, many of them

‘knowledge intensive’. In additionthere are firms that have relocatedfrom the conurbation or from furtherafield to capitalise on environment-related opportunities.

1.4 Thus the quality of Tynedale’snatural and built environment, coupledwith excellent intra-regionalcommunications, has proved crucialto its regeneration. But so too has alocal authority which has positive, notover-restrictive, planning policies,welcoming residential and businessinvestment in a way that is less oftenthe case in the more pressured ruralsouth of England. The local authorityalso has a reputation for not justconsulting but involving localbusinesses and communityorganisations in its work, and agrowing cosmopolitan culture helps toattract more investment to the areawhich further improves the calibre ofstakeholders in the public, private andvoluntary sectors. In short there arein Tynedale elements of a positivelocal spiral of rural development policywhich provides pointers for the future.

Environment as resource forsupporting economic activity– German Case Study1.5 A German example of an areawhich has invested successfully inbusinesses that depend upon the highquality of the natural environment canbe found in the Rhön BiosphereReserve2 . This area, which straddlesthree German regions (Hessen,Bayern and Thuringia), began topromote rural development activity inthe 1980s but at the same time itwas proposed to be protected as abiosphere reserve under the UNESCOdesignation, due to its highly valuablenatural and cultural environmentalassets. Thus the focus of economicdevelopment activity over the past 30years, supported by German and EUfunding under the LEADERprogramme, has been centred aroundmaking the most of these assets inthe characterisation and development

of local food products and outlets,sustainable tourism, and environmentaleducation and interpretation services.

1.6 Successful and well-establishedrural business activities within theBiosphere area include the production andsale of local produce both to individualcustomers and via local restaurants andfestivals, including the traditional Rhönsheep products (meat, sausage, leather)dairy products, pork products (Thüringenbarbecue sausage); Rhön apple varietiesand products, fruit and herb schnapps andbeer, craft and art products (e.g., woodcarvings, cribs, masks etc.); timber andtimber products (furniture). In addition,hiking, cross country and downhill skiing,horse riding, paragliding and mountainbiking are important leisure and touristactivities offered or supported by localbusinesses in the reserve. As part of itscommitment to recreation, the area offersopen access for local people and visitorsto all private and public land, includingnature reserves (as far as conservationobjectives allow).

1.7 The success of the initiatives overthis lengthy period has been attributed tothe development of a dynamic andoutward-looking local culture that hasencouraged the generation and sounddevelopment of ideas for new businessactivities among local people, throughcapacity building by facilitators andcommunity networks, and support for skillsacquisition, market research and feasibilityassessments provided by the variousGerman and EU funding sources. The localpartnership managing these supportservices learnt through experience thatdevelopment was best supported byfostering a fertile environment in whichlocal talents could be nurtured, rather thantrying to import ideas or entrepreneurialskills from external sources3 .

1 ‘The Determinants of Rural Economic Development’ by theUniversities of Plymouth and Gloucestershire, for Defra – as yetunpublished2 For more information see http://www.biosphaerenreservat-rhoen.de3 Herr Eugen Sauer made these points at a presentation to aCountryside Agency seminar for its Land Management Initiativenetwork, January 2001.

G2


Social capital as a driver forrural development1.8 To examine how social capital canact as a driver for rural development, twocase study examples have been selectedfrom outside Northern Ireland. They arebased on the Shropshire Rural Challengeand an educational programme being runby the University of Gloucestershire.

Social capital as a driver forrural development – case study(Shropshire Rural Challenge)1.9 The South-West Shropshire ‘RuralChallenge’ partnership (1995 to 1999)demonstrates the social capital spin-offthat can come about as a by-product offunding a local programme of smallprojects. In essence, in the late 1990sEngland’s Rural Development Commission(subsequently subsumed into theCountryside Agency) awarded a fewsubstantial prizes of £1 million over threeyears to a select group of small townswhich could demonstrate local need, aportfolio of projects to address that need,a promising local partnership and pledgesof substantial matching finance. Aconsortium centred on the smallShropshire market town of Bishop’s Castle(population 2,000), won one of theseprizes.

1.10 When the initiative was evaluatedin 1999 as part of a transnational study oflocal development partnerships, it wasclear not only that many of the projectshad been substantially achieved by thenbut also that a legacy of social capital hadbeen created. In an area of just 10,000people, a partnership of 18 localorganisations – public, private andvoluntary – had come together and stayedtogether to manage the programme, a not-for-profit-company had flourished deliveringindividual projects and, most innovatively,several small semi-formal groups of localpeople had been established to performspecific tasks – for example a ‘tourismgroup’ to manage the tourism grantscheme, an ‘enterprise grants panel’ tosteer small grants to small businessesand the ‘community chest group’ tosupport bottom-up community initiatives.

In addition two ‘community forums’ hadbeen established, each covering half of thedesignated area, as a platform for localdebate on the programme as it proceeded.

1.11 A year after the winding up of theprogramme, the not-for-profit company wasprogressing further ventures and it wasestimated that of the 80 or so local peoplewho had played some sort of active role inthe programme, at least a quarter werestill active in some community capacityhaving previously not been ‘active citizens’in any sense. The observation can bemade that social capital is often best builtup obliquely by challenging local peoplewith something to play for – and bysupporting them as they get to work onpractical projects. This is an experiencewhich as also arisen in various projectsover the years in Northern Ireland includingvarious projects/activities supported underthe Rural Development Programme.

Social capital as a driver forrural development (NationalEducation Programme led byUniversity of Gloucestershire)1.12 A national educational programmefor parish clerks and councillors iscurrently being run by University ofGloucestershire. By 2003, over 1,000local clerks had achieved a universityqualification in ‘Local Policy’. In particularthe course organiser noted, ‘local councilclerks, particularly those working in remoterural areas can often feel isolated andoverwhelmed by the range of work they areexpected to carry out and the increasingnumber of policy directives issued byWestminster. By bringing them into a muchwider network of fellow council clerks andby offering a structured trainingprogramme many participants have gainednew skills, confidence and effectiveness’.

1.13 A strong feature of these courseshas been an emphasis on the potential ofparish councils to go beyond the minimumof fulfilling statutory responsibilities atminimal cost to become pro-active forcesfor local development. Therefore it can bedemonstrated that the training programmehas enhanced:

• Human capital – the 1,000 ‘ruralactivists’ enrolling as students;and

• Social capital – linking themtogether as an ‘interestcommunity’ spread across thewhole country and the ability of theindividual parish councils, and thelocal organisations (with which theyhave dealings) to act as valuableparish-specific embodiments ofsocial capital.

1.14 Again there have been variousexamples of this happening in NorthernIreland including, for example, theestablishment of LEADER Networks, theRDC network of community groups andNRRT Partnerships.

Bridging farming and non-farmsectors in rural economies

Key Ingredients for a moreSustainable Strategy1.15 EU rural development experience,as analysed in recent research4 can bedrawn and distilled into a number of keyingredients that help to determine thesuccess of multi-sectoral economicgrowth, involving both farming and non-farming sectors.

(1) A firm local partnership, with anagreed strategy or plan1.16 Firstly, successful initiatives tendto have taken on board some of the mainelements in the model of ‘endogenousrural development’ as promoted by theLEADER initiative. That is, they begin bybringing together different economic andcommunity actors within a local rural areato discuss their situation and prospects forthe future, with a view to auditing currentresources and potential, and using this toidentify potentially successful newbusiness strategies and directions while

4 Dwyer, Baldock, Beaufoy, Bennett, Lowe and Ward (2001)Europe’s Rural Futures: The Nature of Rural Development II –comparative report to WWF/Land Use Policy Group, published byIEEP, London.

G3


meeting local community and/orenvironmental needs at the same time.This mix of rural actors then forms apartnership to work up a localdevelopment strategy or plan, and seekfunding and/or other resources to helpdeliver it. Once other support is securedon that basis, the partnership may thenoffer support to individual businesses orcommunity groups within the area, to helpthem establish new ventures that candemonstrably contribute to the aims of thestrategy.

(2) Farming playing a central role within across-sectoral initiative1.17 Farmers, and the development offarm resources (products, land/environment, buildings, cultural andcommunity connections), are central to thelocal strategy, but they are closelyinterwoven with other economic actors andsectors, e.g. small-scale manufacturing,processing and retail, services includingleisure and tourism, hospitality, IT salesand promotion, or public sector providerssuch as local councils. This is preciselythe nature of the cross-sectoral initiativeswhich are developing, but still at very earlystages, throughout Northern Ireland. Whatis important is that the success of thestrategy as a whole becomes dependentupon developments both among farmbusinesses and among other related ruralbusinesses, working together to achievemutual benefit.

(3) Resources focused upon buildingentrepreneurial capacity and businesslinkages1.18 Successful initiatives are oftenthose which focus most resources uponbuilding skills, confidence and newbusiness links among established localactors rather than investing mainly incapital items or attempting to bring inpeople and ideas from outside. It seemsthat providing the right environment to getpeople to take time out from their normalbusiness activities and discuss ideas witheach other, to consider and identify whatnew skills or information they might requireand to form new links with potentialbusiness suppliers or customers, can

often be the key to successful businessgrowth5 .

(4) Promotion on the basis of a strongsense of place, Unique Selling Point(USP) and market niche1.19 Successful multi-sectoral economicgrowth needs to be built upon a clearrecognition of the common interest of thevarious actors involved. In local areadevelopment, it is the uniquecharacteristics of that area that differentactors all have to work with, and that willshape the nature of new businessopportunities and ‘branding’ or localtrading networks to create distinctivemarket niches.

1.20 Interesting examples of initiativesfrom outside Northern Ireland and Irelandillustrate these points clearly. Theseexamples have been selected fromEngland and Germany to illustrate thepoint.

England – Rural RegenerationUnit: Cumbria Food Co-operatives1.21 The Rural Regeneration Unit is asmall non-profit organisation that wasformed by leading members of theCountryside Alliance in England inresponse to a strong feeling that localdirect action was urgently needed to helpstrengthen the links between urban andcountry people across England. Led byRichard Burge and with a small core staff,the RRU has been instrumental instimulating a wide range of local activitywith the aim of meeting needs amongfarming and non-farming communities indirect and cost-effective ways.

1.22 One of the RRU’s most successfulinitiatives to date has been the promotionand establishment of a whole network oflocal food co-operatives in Cumbria,working among some of the mosteconomically deprived urban communitiesin the country. With RRU’s help,community groups have developedcontacts with local farmers and growerswho have been willing to modify theirproduction in order to produce a range of

fresh fruit, vegetables and meat for saledirect to these communities acting as foodco-ops, bypassing any kind of ‘middleman’and dealing direct with customers. In thisway, communities have gained access toan increased range of fresher food at lowerprices than they could get from their localshops and supermarkets. In return,farmers capture a much higher proportionof the product final price as a result oftaking responsibility for delivery and closeworking with the community co-ops, tosupply what they are looking for. Theinitiative has strengthened the economicposition of the farmers involved as well asraising awareness among deprivedcommunities in ex-industrial Cumbria aboutwhere their food comes from, and alsopromoting improvements in diet andhealth.

1.23 The model has been so successfulin Cumbria that the RRU has been askedto help stimulate similar action in Wales,on behalf of the Welsh AssemblyGovernment.

Germany – a LEADER-styleapproach to farmingcompetitiveness: RegionenAktiv1.24 The Regionen Aktiv initiative wasset up by the Agriculture Minister, RenateKunast, in 2001, to encourage farm andnon-farm interests in Germany’s ruralareas to work together to promote thegoals of more sustainable farming andfood production which protects andenhances the environment and contributespositively to local economic viability andquality of life. Adopting the LEADER modelwhereby micro-regions had to formmultisectoral partnerships and developstrategies, funding was made available tosupport a pilot of 18 ‘model regions’ overfour years, who were selected through acompetitive process involving a national“jury”. The aim is that the model regions’

5 This is discussed further in the separate section on ‘farmadaptation’.

G4


experience will help reshape Germany’sconsumer and agricultural policy,encompassing ‘the growing importance ofpreventive consumer protection, greaterfocus on quality in agricultural production,enhanced regional added value andemployment opportunities, and theprotection of nature, landscape andspecies diversity’6 . Thus farming and farmfamily businesses are central to thesuccess of the initiative. The specific goalsof the project can be summarised asfollows:

• Strengthening rural areas andcreating additional sources ofincome, developing ‘value chains’,developing products combiningfarming and forestry withlandscape management, enhancingemployment in IT, crafts and tradesand expanding local tourismcombined with marketing localproducts;

• Nature-friendly and environmentallycompatible agriculture (promotingnew agri-environment projects ormore organic farming, developingbranded products withenvironmental quality attributes).These are not dissimilar to the agri-environmental approaches beingundertaken in Northern Ireland;and

• Consumer focus (giving moreweight to consumer intereststhrough enhanced transparency/traceability and information at pointof sale, and forging or enablingcloser relationships betweenproducers and consumers).

1.25 Within each RA area, partnershipnetworks have been formed betweenbusinesses, local municipalities, experts/academics/advisors and community orvoluntary groups. The partnerships havedeveloped new ideas and perspectives forthe region’s future by bringing together theinterests of consumers, producers,retailers and the environment to pursuemutual benefit while also seeking to re-create local identities and strengtheningthe area’s economic and social viability.The strategies were approved in March

2002 and action has been developingsince then up to the present.

1.26 While the process of the RAinitiative might seem similar to many otherrural development projects currently activewithin Northern Ireland and Europe, thefocus upon farming and consumerprotection is what makes it particularlydistinctive. This has enabled RA to attractfarmers into closer working relationshipswith other local businesspeople, to mutualbenefit and the benefit of the local area asa whole. As one farmer puts it ‘it makesyou look above the parapet, broadens yourhorizons and gives you a different range ofoptions for the future.’7

Supporting successful farmadaptation1.27 Examples of highly-regarded farmadaptation programmes can be found inWales (Farming Connect) and the WestMidlands (Rural Hubs). These case studiesare examined in the following paragraphsbelow:

Farming Connect – Wales1.28 Farming Connect is a servicefunded by the Welsh Assembly Government(WAG) in combination with funding from theEU under the Rural DevelopmentProgramme for Wales and the Objective 1programme for West Wales and theValleys. It aims to provide acomprehensive review, advice andbusiness planning support service toindividual farm enterprises. Advisors canbe chosen by the farmer but must be onan approved WAG register, and can offeran extended period of support to eachbusiness as they work through a review oftheir assets and liabilities and put togethera new business plan for the future. Theprocess also incorporates a freeenvironmental audit which highlights thepotential for the farm to enhance itsenvironmental management and incomevia agri-environment schemes or otherventures. Advisors are also connected withthe various agencies who offer grant aidunder the EU rural development andObjective 1 programmes. These includethe Welsh Tourist Board for support with

rural tourism ventures, the Welshagriculture and rural developmentdepartment for farm investment,processing and marketing and pollutioncontrol grants and the Welsh DevelopmentAgency for other non-agricultural smallbusiness ventures.

1.29 The service has been highlightedas particularly successful because of thewide range of support that it offers, aswell as the relative ease of access tofurther sources of assistance in line withwhat is appropriate under each emergingbusiness plan. The popularity of theprogramme among farmers is clear –already more than 2,000 businesses havereceived support and it is currently heavilyoversubscribed and operating a waitinglist. While early evaluation highlightedsome issues in relation to the competenceof advisors in dealing with a wide range ofpotential business options, this is beingaddressed through training and CPDprogrammes running alongside theservice. The environmental element inFarming Connect is another recentdevelopment which is also proving popularamong recipients and could be veryrelevant if applied within a NorthernIreland context.

Rural Hubs in the WestMidlands, England1.30 This initiative has been reviewed ina recent short report8 . It describes howthe concept of setting up clusters ofbusinesses to combine businessdevelopment with new approaches tolearning among the farming and other ruralsectors has been developing in the WestMidlands since 2001. The support of whatare now generally known as ‘rural hubs’ isa central ambition of those organisationsand individuals involved in taking forward

6 Model Regions (2004) explanatory leaflet produced by theRegionen Aktiv network (supplied via www.regionenaktiv.de)7 Dwyer, Buller, Slee, Baldock and Swales (2002) Helping FarmersAdapt – comparative report to National Audit Office, as yetunpublished but to be available on the NAO website fromSeptember 2004. (www/nao.gov.uk)8 West Midlands Farming and Food Team report to the EnglandRural Affairs Forum, May 2004, Defra.

G5


the sustainable food and farming agendain the region. Together they have beenworking to facilitate the development ofthese hubs and networks and to sharebest practice and enhance communicationbetween them.

1.31 Agencies and business areincreasingly recognising that thedevelopment of business-led networks andgroups can help provide a mechanism forbusiness improvement; knowledge andinformation transfer and the basis fordeveloping innovative and collaborativeapproaches and projects. For ruralbusinesses “the hubs” help them to learnfrom each other how to respond tochanges in markets and supportprogrammes. It also offers the potentialfor rural businesses to shape andinfluence the delivery of support in thefuture. For the public sector, the creationof a strong network of business-led groupssuch as hubs offers a route to, andreconnection with, a wider range of ruralbusinesses on matters of policy anddelivery. Hubs and networks can help tofoster the idea of collaboration as aresponse to dealing with changes. Suchhubs in Northern Ireland might developaround the Enterprise Northern Ireland,Local Enterprise Agency network with thesupport of the further education sectorand agricultural colleges.

1.32 Key issues in relation to “hubs”include:

• Ensuring that hubs development istruly bottom up and business led;

• Funding the necessaryadministration and facilitation of adeveloping hub: it is the busy andcommitted business people whogenerally take a lead in suchdevelopments, and they often havelimited time to take on theadministrative tasks needed tosustain an effective network;

• Building the capacity of hubs toinfluence the type of support thatthey receive and hopefully toincreasingly take a hand in co-ordination and delivery; and

• Providing a system for effective

communication and signpostingbetween groups on relevant issues.The importance of “one stop”shops.

1.33 One of the longest establishedrural hubs is the Warwickshire rural hub,set up in 2003. It provides a directcommunication channel to organisationsthat can help rural businesses, practicalevents tailored to local needs,opportunities to network with like-mindedpeople, assistance with collaborativebusiness ventures, visits to look at bestpractice examples, and access to trainingand skills development. Membership of thehub is free to all farm and ruralbusinesses in the county, and membersautomatically receive a quarterlynewsletter and regular postal or emailnotices about hub events and activities.

1.34 The Warwickshire hub hasspawned a series of business-led groupsconcentrating their meetings and activitiesaround particular kinds of enterprise. Theycurrently include the following broad topicareas:

• Food and drink processing anddistribution;

• Energy crops;• Alternative crops;• Equine;• Tourism and farm attractions;• Re-usable buildings;• Waste management;• Arable;• Dairy;• Livestock; and• IT and website training9 .

1.35 The Hub website gives up to datenews of each group’s activities, detailingvisits, events and meetings and theiroutcomes.

1.36 One local expert comments ‘it isimportant to note that it is very early days.Although all five W Midlands counties nowhave a hub, they are still quite small andfragile, and somewhat limited in theirsector representation, but all haveambitions to seek to affiliate with non

9 From the Warwickshire rural hub website – www.ruralnet.org.uk/~rural-forum/grows/growshub2.htm

land-based business networks and groupsand have them as members. This will taketime.’

1.37 Nevertheless, the fact that muchactivity and enthusiasm for the hubs andtheir work has clearly been generatedamong farming communities in the WestMidlands is testament to the potentialinterest in this kind of approach tobusiness adaptation, in the currentclimate. Northern Ireland is well placed tobuild on its existing enterprise creationinfrastructure. The task is to betterorientate it towards the farmingcommunity. This has already started underLEADER plus through the activities of thetwelve LEADER groups.

ISBN 1-85527-738-7

a study on rural policygazdakorok.hu/files/2011/03/1_melléklet.pdf2011/03/01 · figure 6.4: views...

Documents