MORE action must be taken if rural proofing is to fulfill its potential, says Jessica Sellick.

The Rural White Paper ‘Our Countryside: the future’ published in 2000 introduced the Government’s commitment to ‘think rural’. Rural Proofing, shorthand for this responsibility, is a process that involves all levels of Central Government ensuring the needs and interests of rural people, businesses and communities are fully and equitably reflected in policy making and delivery.

In practice, this means policy-makers are required to: a) consider whether their policy is likely to have a different impact in rural areas because of rural circumstances or needs; b) make a proper assessment of those impacts; and c) adjust the policy, where necessary, with solutions to meet rural circumstances and needs.

Although some RSN Members have documented successes – I am thinking here of how Gloucestershire Rural Economy Advisory Panel ‘rural proof’ regional and county economic strategies and plans at draft stage – much of the empirical material submitted to the RSN highlights the irregular approach taken – from the tension between the growth agenda/planning system and its resultant impact on the physical fabric of villages and landscapes; to its omission to apply the provisions to such bodies as electricity providers, police forces, NHS Trusts or even local authorities.

While the RSN welcomes the measures which have been taken to establish rural proofing as an important part of the policy making process, the Manifesto calls for its implementation to be taken further if it is to fulfil its potential. To address the shortcomings RSN evidence identifies, I would suggest three key elements need to be addressed.

Firstly, at a conceptual level, should rural proofing be as straightforward as possible or as comprehensive as possible? Oftentimes, rural proofing is administered through ‘check lists’ – the original checklist developed by the Countryside Agency included questions such as ‘will the policy affect the availability of public and private services?’ and ‘will the cost of delivery be higher in rural areas where clients are more widely dispersed or economies of scale are harder to achieve?’ Do service providers and users need something concise such as a checklist or will they be more encouraged to use something less structured but that offers lots of advice? Whatever approach is taken it needs to fit the issues, communities and places that could be affected by a policy or initiative. Some RSN Members have suggested rural proofing needs ‘some grit’ via legislature to ensure it is embedded in policy.

Secondly, as a practical tool, what is the role of national, regional and local bodies in co-ordinating, influencing and championing rural issues? What is the relationship between policy/strategy/service providers and service users/citizens? This raises issues around who is and should be responsible for rural proofing. Defra is responsible for championing rural proofing across Government and the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) – through the Rural Advocate- has a rural proofing monitoring role, advising and judging on how the process is undertaken by a variety of organisations.

All too often this means rural proofing is viewed within the confines of central government. To overcome this, the CRC has been working with Defra, Regional Rural Affairs Forums (RRAFs) Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE) and the East of England Development Agency (EEDA) to develop guidance for regional and local organisations seeking to influence the emerging Regional Strategies. Should rural proofing be extended to cover the decision making processes and activities of PCTs, the Police, Local Authorities and other public service providers?

In practice, the challenge becomes one of ensuring rural proofing does not become a ‘tick box’ exercise lost within a broader equality framework.The RSN’s policy position is that rural proofing should be required to secure proportionate impact across all rural areas, including remote and peripheral communities (and with a requirement for Central Government to meet the additional “rural premium costs” associated with servicing such areas). The RSN also has called for rural proofing to be extended to the Regional and Sub-Regional levels of government.

Thirdly, as a process, when should rural proofing take place? At the outset, as the CRC and the RSN suggest, during the policy-making process as the Campaign for National Parks suggest, or retrospectively? Again the approach taken should ensure the concerns of those who could be affected by decisions are taken seriously, and that they are fully and actively involved in assessing the initiative and/or participating in the process of policy formation.

The Government’s focus on mainstreaming, place shaping and total place combined with public sector spending reviews and ‘cuts’, make the case for rural proofing even more compelling. For me, rural proofing is not concerned with favouring rural areas – this is to look the wrong way through the telescope – rather it is about making a commitment to ensure rural circumstances and needs become an integral part of policy, no longer seen as an add-on or after-thought.

The CRC has recently refreshed its rural proofing guidance. This includes a Toolkit that can be used by a variety of organisations to work out if their initiative is likely to encounter the challenges posed by rural circumstances. The Toolkit is available by clicking here (pdf file).

The East of England Development Agency (EEDA) has produced a short guide to rural proofing in economic development, including a project evaluation tool. This is available by clicking here.

Discuss this article on our forum by clicking here.

Jessica Sellick is a consultant for Rose Regeneration. She can be contacted at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .