Approaches to rural proofing: review report

Conclusions

This report has outlined the findings of a high-level review of international approaches to rural proofing, focusing on publicly available guidance and practical tools. It has also summarised key points from several recent reports on rural proofing in terms of its effectiveness and implementation. This research was carried out to inform work to develop a rural approach for policy makers in Scotland. The Scottish Government has committed to publishing a Rural Delivery Plan by 2026, and to apply a rural lens approach to all ongoing policies.

Main findings

This report has outlined the findings of a high-level review of international approaches to rural proofing, focusing on publicly available guidance and practical tools. It has also summarised key points from several recent reports on rural proofing in terms of its effectiveness and implementation.

The main findings are as follows:

• A number of countries have developed their own approaches to rural proofing, however this process has been critiqued for being a ‘tick box’ exercise, and there is a wider lack of evidence and reporting on its impact;
• In some places, the rural proofing process appears to have been simplified since its introduction, with a number of countries stating that the level of work required by policy makers should be proportionate to the potential scale and significance of the relevant policy in rural areas;
• Developing a robust monitoring and evaluation framework to ensure Government policy works as intended in rural areas is important, as is considering appropriate mechanisms to gather feedback, ensure openness and scrutiny;
• It is important that rural stakeholders are kept informed about the purpose and value of the rural proofing process

Whilst this report indicates the diversity of approaches to rural proofing taken in other countries, in part shaped by particular issues faced by rural and island communities in each country, a number of common themes emerge.

In all of the examples examined here, there is a focus on building policy makers’ understanding of the need to deliver policy differently in rural areas, to capture the potential impacts of policies and identify actions to address this. Shared issues in different international contexts which shape the impacts of policies in rural areas include rural depopulation and challenges in service delivery.

Whilst some countries have created shorter templates for policy makers to complete, others have published detailed guidance and developed an evidence base, including statistics, to support the process. In some contexts, rural proofing is voluntary, whereas in others it is a requirement.

A further common theme across all examples is the difficulty of designing a straightforward process, ensuring that it is followed consistently, and able to effectively influence decision making, alongside taking a successful approach to engaging with stakeholders and evaluating the process in a robust way. A key learning is the need to have an adaptable and responsive process.

Recommendations

Based on the examples and wider literature reviewed here, a number of practical recommendations can be made in terms of the development, design and monitoring of a rural proofing process:

• Guidance documents should begin with a clear definition of what rural proofing means in the given context, and an explanation of its aims and purpose;
• Guidance documents should also include a statement of the relevant organisation or government’s wider commitment to, or a vision for, rural areas;
• Guidance and tools should be written from a rural perspective, avoiding terms such as ‘remote’ or the implication that rural areas are ‘behind’ or lack what urban areas have;
• Practical advice on stakeholder engagement in rural areas should be given;
• A summary of key rural data and information should be included to give a ‘picture’ of rural areas, for example in terms of health, transport or education;
• A visual diagram or flow-chart of the rural proofing process should be provided;
• The review or approval process should be clearly explained, and any further expectations in terms of the provision of monitoring and evaluation data;
• A number (e.g. 3-4) of case studies should be given as practical examples;
• Questionnaires should be written in Plain English, with a short list of prompts (for example, questions to ask, key principles or stages to follow);
• Guidance and tools should be tested with potential user groups, particularly those less familiar with rural issues, who can provide helpful feedback on the accessibility of the documents and how long the process takes.

The findings of this review will be used to support work to develop a rural policy approach in Scotland.

(Table 1) Summary of approaches to rural proofing: Northern Ireland

Percentage (%) of population that live in rural areas: 37%

Guidance / documents: Thinking Rural: The Essential Guide to Rural Proofing

Key Rural Issues 2021.pdf (daera-ni.gov.uk)

• Questionnaire / checklist
• Stakeholder engagement
• Rural proofing has been required since 2002 and is part of a range of impact assessments
• Policy makers expected to complete a Rural Issues Statement pro-forma using the guidance
• Those carrying out rural proofing are advised to have a clear definition of ‘rural’
• Advised to contact rural stakeholders to discuss initial policy ideas

• What are the rural specific impacts of the policy? Are there any potential indirect impacts?
• Are there any potential local impacts that will differ from the regional impact?
• Is there a need for pre-consultation with rural stakeholders to get better insight into potential rural impacts?
• Is there a need for actions to mitigate against impacts in rural areas?
• If you screen out rural proofing, what is your reason?
• Have the consultation responses identified any potentially different impacts in terms of rural areas/communities?
• Can you demonstrate how you have targeted and fully engaged with rural stakeholders during consultation?
• Have you any rural specific indicators that have been set to monitor and your policy implementation?

(Table 2) Summary of approaches to rural proofing: England

Percentage (%) of population that live in rural areas: 17%

Guidance / documents: Rural proofing in England 2020 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Rural proofing: Practical guidance to assess impacts of policies

Response from the Rural Coalition

Rural proofing for health toolkit – Rural England

• Stakeholder engagement
• Use of available rural data
• In 2019, the Government reaffirmed its commitment to ‘rural proofing’ all policies and a yearly report from Defra
• Each department has a nominated ‘rural proofing lead’ and a wider network to share best practice and champion rural proofing in policy development.
• The use of area-based data to identify social, economic and environmental differences

Engaging with rural stakeholders and their networks to gather evidence and test proposals.

• What are the intended outcomes for rural areas?
• How might outcomes differ between rural and urban areas?
• How are the outcomes to be delivered in rural areas?
• What are the potential issues and challenges?
• How might the situation vary between different types of rural area?
• What are the target populations and how might they be affected or disadvantaged?
• In the case of funding, are rurality or sparsity taken into account?
• What are the dependencies, if any, with the responsibilities of other departments?
• Which bodies could be involved in delivering the outcomes in rural areas?
• What evidence is needed?

(Table 3) Summary of approaches to rural proofing: Wales

Percentage (%) of population that live in rural areas: 35%

Guidance / documents: Rural proofing checklist

• Questionnaire / checklist
• Stakeholder engagement
• Policy makers complete a Rural Proofing tool

Also asked to complete a short monitoring form to collect data on the impact of rural proofing

• What contact have you had with rural stakeholders?
• Will access be an issue for rural people?
• Has the policy taken account of rural needs, e.g. older population, lack of affordable housing, language requirements?
• Will the policy lead to the creation of new services
• (positive impacts) or the closure of existing services (negative impacts)?
• How do you plan to overcome or mitigate any negative impacts?
• Does your policy require the purchase or use of land? Have you considered rural dimensions such as land value, availability or restrictive designation?
• Will your policy work in areas of difficult terrain, e.g. narrow roads, steep mountains?
• Is your policy relevant to SMEs or Micro Businesses? Does your policy expect business to be able to access support?
• Does your policy depend on infrastructure such as good road/rail connections or fast broadband speeds?
• Did any other issues come up as a result of the engagement with stakeholders mentioned in Q1 or any other consultation?

(Table 4) Summary of approaches to rural proofing: Spain

Percentage (%) of population that live in rural areas: 19%

Guidance / documents: G100 Rural Proofing project

Introduction of a ‘rural proofing mechanism’ in 2022.

• Open participation method
• First nationwide exercise on rural proofing to develop a rural guarantee mechanism
• G100 group has 100 members, open participation and consultation
• Spain a EU test case for policies against rural depopulation

N/A – no tools publicly available.

(Table 5) Summary of approaches to rural proofing: Finland

Percentage (%) of population that live in rural areas: 28%

Guidance / documents: Rural Impact Assessment process

Rural impact assessment guide for law drafters

Presentation on the rural proofing approach and check-list.

• Rural proofing approach developed since 2007
• Rural proofing since applied at local and regional level on a voluntary basis
• Checklists, workshops, geospatial data and questionnaires.

Does the proposal have impacts on:

• the living conditions, health, well-being, everyday safety and security of people living in rural areas?
• livelihoods and/or the economic structure or the prerequisites for business activities in rural areas?
• the national security of supply?
• the prerequisites for finding employment, the income of people living in rural areas or the forms of working?
• the availability and stability of employees, and functioning of the labour market in rural areas?
• on smooth running of everyday life and the equal and unimpeded access to and accessibility of services (e.g., health and social services, basic education, education and training, transport) in rural areas?
• transport connections, travel chains or the conditions for mobility in rural areas?
• the environment, landscape and/or culture in rural areas?
• the realisation of democracy, fundamental rights and equality between individuals and regions? activities in associations, inclusion and communality and/or social capital in rural areas?
• any other economic impacts, such as impacts on the economy and/or vitality of rural areas?
• other topics e.g., between different types of impacts?

(Table 6) Summary of approaches to rural proofing: New Zealand

Percentage (%) of population that live in rural areas: 15%

Guidance / documents: Rural Proofing Policies Checklist

Rural Proofing tool for policy practitioners

Common issues to consider when rural proofing

• Rural impact assessment
• Stakeholder consultation
• Commitment to rural proofing introduced in 2018.
• The government has produced guidance and a Rural Proofing Impact Assessment Checklist

• Confirm your policy objectives and various stakeholders and audiences.
• Identify benefits and implications for the rural community
• Seek advice from relevant rural contacts and organisations
• Assess the implications
• Consider mitigation measures
• Make adjustments
• Keep parties updated

(Table 7) Summary of approaches to rural proofing: Canada

Percentage (%) of population that live in rural areas: 18%

Guidance / documents: What do you see when you look through the rural lens? : guide to using the rural lens

• Rural impact assessment

Stakeholder consultation

• How is the initiative relevant to rural and remote Canada?
• Is the impact specific to a selected rural or remote environment or region?
• Have the most likely positive and negative effects on rural Canadians been identified
• and, where relevant, addressed?
• Is the initiative designed to respond to the priorities identified by rural Canadians?
• Have rural Canadians been consulted during the development or modification of the
• initiative?
• How is the benefit to rural Canadians maximised (e.g. cooperation with other partners,

Development of local solutions to local challenges, flexibility for decision making, etc.)?

(Table 8) Summary of approaches to rural proofing: Australia

Percentage (%) of population that live in rural areas: 28%

• The South Australian Government has introduced the Regional Impact Assessment Statement Policy
• Regional impact assessment
• Stakeholder consultation

The Regional Impact Assessment Statement has 12 stages, including:

• Title of the initiative
• Issue to be addressed
• Region(s) impacted by the proposal
• Stakeholders affected by the proposed initiative
• Stakeholders consulted
• Consultation
• Summary of Impacts and Analysis
• Mitigation
• Coordination

(Table 9) Summary of approaches to rural proofing: Korea

Percentage (%) of population that live in rural areas: 19%

Emphasis on stakeholder partnerships and local delivery

A ‘Rural Proofing Operation Guideline’ was published in 2020 (not available in English).