Towards an Improved Rural Data Infrastructure for rural Scotland

Rural Change Scenarios

Module D represents an attempt to make informed guesses about possible changes which might occur in the future British countryside as a result of, or related to, differing rural policy circumstances; moreover its is also the aim to interpret these scenarios in terms of their implications for data which would be required and available in order to monitor the changes, and to develop better knowledge about why they happen.

Assumptions

The use of future scenarios is common in foresight exercises (see, for example, The UK Environmental Foresight Project report from CEST, (Mason 1993), and Grounds for Choices report of Scientific Council for the Netherlands, (1992)). In the remainder of this page, summary descriptions are provided for three scenarios:

• Partially de-coupled Common Agricultural Policy
• Rapid de-coupling of agricultural support
• An enhanced European Rural Development Policy

They extend the three agricultural / rural development scenarios orginally developed for Birnie et al. 1995, and are intended to assist in consideration of possible changes over the next 10 to 15 years. They are based on certain assumptions in order to hold certain elements similar between the scenarios, whilst allowing the interesting policy drivers to vary. The assumptions below apply to all three scenarios here:

1. Markets and Technology. The agricultural supply curve will continue to move to the right as a result of uptake of technology, however, demand for agricultural output will remain stable.
2. UK economy. It is assumed that the wider economic framework within which UK agriculture operates will remain as at present with emphasis on control of inflation and the budget deficit.
3. Planning controls. Planning controls will be maintained with some minor relaxation as a result of more emphasis on locally-led planning. This will lead to more localised differentiation of planning regulations.
4. Structural funding. Structural funding such as the LEADER programme is assumed to expand but it is expected that it will continue to be targeted at Objective 1 and 5b areas. This is consistent with the current cohesion policies for countering the drift towards the core of Europe; which in the UK means towards the South-East.

References:

• Birnie RV, Morgan RJ, Bateman D, McGregor MJ, Potter C, Shucksmith DM, Thompson TRE and Webster JPG (1995). Review of Land Use Research in the UK. MLURI, Aberdeen.
• Haines-Young R and Watkins C (1996). The rural data infrastructure. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 10(1): 21-36.Macnee K (1994). Literature Review of Rural Issues. Scottish Office Central Research Unit.
• Mason KD (1993).The UK Environmental Foresight Project Volume 1. Preparing for the Future. Centre for Exploitation of Science and Technology, HMSO, London 144pp.
• Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy (1992). Ground for choices. Four perspectives for the rural areas in the European Community. The Hague, 144pp.

Scenario 1: Partially de-coupled Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

Description

The basis of this scenario is that the process of CAP modification occurs on an incremental path where the current basis of agricultural support is maintained with increasing amounts being channelled away from product related support, towards agri-environment and direct income measures. Use of weak cross-compliance continues and develops incrementally. In summary this scenario represents a minimalist change policy which is likely to continue in the next 5 years.

Outcomes

The major driving force associated with this scenario is that there will be a surplus of agricultural land.

• Land use: The importance of set-aside as an instrument of production control will increase incrementally. This will result in a growing need to transfer better quality land to non-agricultural uses. These uses will include farm woodlands, especially lowland forestry and also other reversible land uses such as golf courses. A further consequence of the assumptions is that there will be a trend towards extensification of land use in peripheral areas and areas of low land quality. There will be uneven distribution of regional impact in terms of levels of intensification/ extensification. It is anticipated that intensification will occur in areas of comparative productive advantage and the potential for pollution will increase in these areas.
• Agricultural adjustment: Response to incremental changes in the CAP will continue in a staged reactionary manner as at present. Financial pressures on farm incomes will continue to encourage farmers to consider and adopt diversification which will include on- and off-farm pluriactivity. It may also include an increased willingness to supply public environmental goods where financial incentives directed through the agri-environment programme make this attractive.
• Rural employment and rural economy: Agricultural employment will continue to decline at current rates. There will be a continued need for the creation of alternative employment opportunities based in rural areas with the consequence that there will be a increased requirement for housing. The current increase in the migration and influence of counter urbanisation in rural communities will continue.
• Uptake of environmental aspects of policy: The rate of uptake of agri-environmental initiatives will be determined by two factors; the rate of payment but also attitudinal changes resulting from succession on farms. In order to meet increases in public requirements for environmental goods, it will also be necessary to continue with the process of designation of areas using a wider range of instruments.
• Level of government activity and requirement for monitoring: It is anticipated that the level of government activity in monitoring the outcomes of policy will remain at near to current levels.

Scenario 2: Rapid de-coupling of agricultural support

Description

Under this scenario the de-coupling of farm support from farmer's production decisions is taken to its logical conclusion through the phasing out of price guarantees and their replacement by production-neutral, de-coupled payments. The key assumption is that income transfers to farmers are made on strictly defined environmental or social grounds and that increasing transparency brings with it strong pressure to justify any payments that are made in terms of the public goods produced. Policy is still on a voluntary basis with some farmers choosing to enrol land into the de-coupled environmental schemes now widely on offer, or producing at world market prices.

Outcomes

The agricultural and land use consequences of radical de-coupling would be widespread and long term. A drastic reduction in producer prices brought about by the withdrawal of price support would quickly feed through to declining land values and rents and the de-capitalization of agricultural businesses which this implies. Most commentators expect an acceleration in farm structural change as financially vulnerable farms are sold or re-let, the land being taken up by newcomers (including life-style or hobby-farmers from non-farming backgrounds) or existing farmers seeking to expand their farmed areas. Generally agriculture will become a more polarised industry with an intensive market/product-orientated production sector on the one hand and a rump of marginal, part-time businesses on the other. Meanwhile opportunities would exist for environmental groups to enter the now more open land market, especially in the more environmentally valuable or scenically attractive areas.

Greater geographical differentiation of agriculture can be expected, with further concentration of production (particularly arable/horticulture) on the better land and a withdrawal from marginal land in the "middle countryside". Farming practice will more closely reflect the productive capacity of the land, and high input farming will be restricted to land where output justifies inputs and the environmental impact is acceptable. Land in the uplands, on shallow or very permeable soils over groundwater and on impermeable clay soils in the English Midlands currently in arable production will lose capital value and along with the upland margins may see significant increases in forest area and ownership by conservation bodies. On farmed land, grant aid will encourage soil and water/wildlife conservation practices at the margins of productive fields and units. Environmental quality objective-setting, akin to industrial emission controls may lead to capacity setting at the water catchment level (i.e. so many hectares of farm land but no more, based on N and P limits).

All of these hypothesised changes suggest an uneven pattern of intensification, extensification and land diversion throughout the countryside, with profound implications for the natural environment and rural landscapes. At the same time, however, the expansion of agri-environmental programmes in order to exploit the "conservation dividend" of wider agricultural policy reform mean that measures may be instigated to speed up, slow down, arrest or deflect land use and environmental change.

Scenario 3: An enhanced European Rural Development Policy

Description

This scenario assumes that rural land use policy is driven less by further changes in agricultural policy and more by greater emphasis being given to EU rural development policy. This policy is taken to imply the empowerment of local groups in line with the principle of subsidiarity and in accordance with recent community pilot initiatives embodying processes of community-led rural development (i.e. LEADER). The defining principle is one of local control of resources and land use policy, within a broad enabling framework of national and EU policies.

It is assumed that this proceeds in the context of a partially de-coupled CAP, as outlined in Scenario 1. Account should also be taken of the reform of local government which in many rural areas of Britain will result in single tier authorities. It is assumed that such authorities will work in partnership with local enterprise companies (in Scotland) or their equivalents, and with voluntary groups. It is further assumed that land use planning continues to be operated by local authorities in much the same way as at present, with a tendency towards more "plan-led" planning giving greater influence to the statutory local plan. Such a scenario provides an alternative to the agricultural-policy-led scenarios, which have been criticised as relics of agricultural fundamentalism, at a time when the importance of agriculture to the rural economy has diminished. The Scottish Office has recently noted that "a general conclusion emerging from the literature is that community action is likely to become an increasingly important tool for the effective implementation of rural policy" (Macnee 1994). In this scenario it is assumed that the UK government is prepared to cede power to local communities in parallel with its EU partners.

Outcomes

The major effect of such local empowerment in relation to land use policy is likely to be greater differentiation between areas, both in terms of policy objectives and land use impacts. While some local communities would prioritise economic development, and so favour diversification of land uses and a relaxation of planning controls, others would prioritise preservation of residential amenity and protection of residential property values so opposing development and land use change. This might be expected to lead to a finer-grained mosaic of land use effects than under either of the first two scenarios, not only as a result of the more localised scale of policy implementation but also reflecting the greater diversity of policy objectives. Both the scale and the processes of change might thus be different from previous scenarios.

Local partnerships would be essential in implementing such a rural policy, as they have been under the LEADER initiative, so offering scope for greater integration of policy at the local level. At the same time, this would create a need for interchange of experience and information between local communities (again as evidenced by LEADER), as well as making it more difficult to achieve policy co-ordination between local areas with possible damage to the regional and national strategic interest. There might be greater levels of public participation in objective setting and in policy implementation, but this could by no means be guaranteed, and there might even be greater dangers of social exclusion and marginalisation. Opportunities would exist for rural land use initiatives, guided by local priorities and local circumstances, perhaps including rural tourism, community woodlands, combined heat and power, or lowland crofting.

There would certainly be a need for training, animation and extension work to support the involvement of local people, and best practice guidance in relation to these tasks; and there would be a continuing need for national and regional frameworks within which local actions could proceed.