About siviluke

Posts by :

Underground or Overground –should we bury electricity cables?

Underground or Overground –should we bury electricity cables?

The electricity transmission system in England and Wales consists of approximately 7,200 kilometres (4,470 miles) of overhead line and 1,400 kilometres (870 miles) of underground cable operating at 275,000 and 400,000 volts (275kV and 400kV). The term ‘undergrounding’ refers to the replacement of overhead cables with underground cables. When and where is undergrounding currently used – and should it be rolled out in more rural areas? Jessica Sellick investigates. ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

It was during the Industrial Revolution, and the work of Benjamin Franklin in 1752, which started the use of human-generated electricity. Coal was used to power tools and machines and, in 1769, James Watt patented the world’s first coal-powered steam engine which was used in factories and mills. The UK’s gas industry was founded in 1812 when Frederick Winsor formed a company to build a public gas works and distribute gas to customers through a network of underground pipes. London’s network provided gas to almost 70,000 streetlights by 1827, and in 1882 the Edison Electric Light Station was built in London to supply light and heat to urban residents.  

In the early 20th century electricity started to be pumped into people’s home using pylons designed by Sir Reginald Blomfield – with electricity being provided across the country. After the First World War the electricity industry wanted cheaper and more reliable energy supplies. In 1925 Lord Weir chaired a committee that proposed the development of the Central Electricity Board (CEB) which would connect power stations in Britain and be called a ‘national gridiron’. The Electricity (Supply) Act 1926 established the CEB as a statutory body with the duty of supplying electricity.  

The world’s first integrated national grid began in 1935, with 7 grid areas established and overseen by control rooms in Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Birmingham, Bristol, London and Glasgow. In 1937 control room engineers combined all seven grid areas for the first time. 

In the post first world war era power stations were being built less frequently, coal was rationed, yet electricity usage was increasing. In 1949 National Grid initiated talks with Électricité de France, a French-based power company, about constructing a cross-Channel power link. Still not able to keep up with supply demands, in 1950 a 12-year project was launched to establish a 275kV ‘supergrid’. 42-metre-high pylons and 4,000 miles of transmission lines were installed as part of this work. In 1957 the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) was established – and its structure reduced to five regions to allow for more efficient operations. Between the 1960s and 1980s a new 400kV supergrid was constructed. 

In 1989 the Electricity Act was approved. This led to the privatisation of the electricity industry. Section 9 of the Act gave National Grid a statutory duty to maintain ‘an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity transmission’. National Grid also has to meet minimum standards of quality in terms of voltage and frequency; and is responsible for maintaining its transmission system and managing a programme of asset replacement. 

In 1995 National Grid was listed on the London Stock Exchange and its shares traded publicly. Its seven control centres across Britain were replaced by the Electricity National Control Centre (ENCC) in Wokingham. In practical terms National Grid transmits electricity at high speed (of 275kV and 400kV) across the country, through pylons and overhead lines, and then transports electricity into homes and businesses through its distribution networks. To make the electricity safe for domestic use National Grid must lower the voltage of electricity to up to 132kV– which can be done via smaller pylons or underground cables that carry lower voltage lines. In addition, small-scale electricity generators (e.g. wind farms, solar parks) connect direct to the distribution network through embedded generation. In 2019, for the first time in the UK and the United States, more energy was generated from zero carbon sources than fossil fuels and the National Grid launched ‘The Great Grid Upgrade’, infrastructure projects to connect more renewable energy to homes and businesses.

In England and Wales National Grid owns, builds and maintains pylons and overhead lines (OHL) and underground cables that make up the electricity transmission network. Distribution network operators (DNOs) manage the poles, pylons and cables in a local area – in some local areas these are also run by the National Grid while in other areas other operators manage the network.  

What is undergrounding – and when and where is it used? Undergrounding is a process whereby overhead lines (OHLs) providing electrical power or telecommunications are replaced with underground cables. The technology to do this ranges from direct burial (1.5 metres wide and 1.2 metres deep) through to deep bore tunnels (12 metres wide and 25-30 metres deep). 

Early undergrounding can be traced back to the first submarine communications cables laid in the 1850s which carried telegraphy traffic, with the first transatlantic telegraph cable becoming operational on 16 August 1858. Around 1890 Sebastian Ziani de Ferranti designed high-voltage underground mains cables which he used to connect the Grosvenor Galleries to Deptford substation – he further developed this cabling so they could handle 10,000 volt current to be rolled out more widely. During the 20th century Direct-buried cable (DBC) became commonplace. Unlike standard power cables, which have a thin layer of insulation and a waterproof outer layer, DBC consists of multiple layers of heavy metallic-banded sheathing, reinforced by rubber covers, shock absorbing gel, waterproof tape and stiffened by a heavy metal core. 

The security and reliability of the UK’s current and future energy supply is dependent on having a network and infrastructure to meet electricity demand – this includes above and lower voltage OHL and underground cables of any voltage. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) publishes planning guidance for developers of nationally significant energy infrastructure projects. Overarching National Policy Statement for energy (EN-1) was presented to parliament in November 2023 and came into force in January 2024. Section 5.10.7 states: 

National Parks, the Broads and AONBs have been confirmed by the government as having the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and natural beauty. Each of these designated areas has specific statutory purposes. Projects should be designed sensitively given the various siting, operational, and other relevant constraints. For development proposals located within designated landscapes, the Secretary of State should be satisfied that measures which seek to further purposes of the designation are sufficient, appropriate, and proportionate to the type and scale of the development. 

Section 5.11.20 states: 

The general policies controlling development in the countryside apply with equal force in Green Belts but there is, in addition, a general presumption against inappropriate development within them. Such development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Applicants should therefore determine whether their proposal, or any part of it, is within an established Green Belt and if it is, whether their proposal may be inappropriate development within the meaning of Green Belt policy. 

DESNZ’s National Policy Statement for electricity networks infrastructure (EN-5) was published in November 2023. This sets out the Government’s policy on OHL and underground cables. Sections 2.9.11-12 state: 

Landscape and visual benefits may arise through the reconfiguration, rationalisation, or undergrounding of existing electricity network infrastructure. Though mitigation of the landscape and visual impacts arising from overhead lines and their associated infrastructure is usually possible, it may not always be so, and the impossibility of full mitigation in these cases does not countermand the need for overhead lines…However, in nationally designated landscapes (for instance, National Parks, The Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) even residual impacts may well make an overhead line proposal unacceptable in planning terms. 

Sections 2.9.20-23 state: 

Although it is the government’s position that overhead lines should be the strong starting presumption for electricity networks developments in general, this presumption is reversed when proposed developments will cross part of a nationally designated landscape (i.e. National Park, The Broads, or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty)… However, undergrounding will not be required where it is infeasible in engineering terms, or where the harm that it causes (see section 2.11.4) is not outweighed by its corresponding landscape, visual amenity and natural beauty benefits…Additionally, cases will arise where – though no part of the proposed development crosses a designated landscape – a high potential for widespread and significant adverse landscape and/or visual impacts along certain sections of its route may result in recommendations to use undergrounding for relevant segments of the line or alternatively consideration of using a route including subsea cabling. 

These documents set out the factors that the Secretary of State should consider in granting development consent, including:

  • The landscape and visual baseline characteristics of the setting of the proposed route. 
  • The additional cost of the proposed underground or subsea alternatives, including their significantly higher lifetime cost of repair and later uprating. 
  • The applicant’s commitment to mitigate the potential detrimental effects of undergrounding works on any relevant agricultural land and soils (including peat soils). 

Overall, OHL is the Government’s strong starting presumption for electricity network infrastructure developments. However, this is reversed in nationally designated landscapes where the strong starting presumption should be that the applicant will underground ‘relevant sections’ of the line. 

The Visual Impact Provision (VIP) is managed by National Grid and administering £465 million of funding from Ofgem to reduce the impact of existing transmission lines in English and Welsh AONBs and National Parks. The National Grid has  assessed 571km of its electricity transmission lines in these protected landscapes to identify which sections have the highest visual impact on their surroundings. Using input from technical experts, local stakeholders, communities and a Stakeholder Advisory Group, 4 individual priority schemes have been selected where replacing the OHL with an underground connection could have a transformative effect on the landscape: (1) Cotswolds, (2) Dorset, (3) Snowdonia, and (4) North Wessex Downs. Alongside this, the VIP project includes the Landscape Enhancement Initiative (LEI) which is a grant scheme which awarded almost £4 million between 2015 and 2021 for localised visual improvement projects. From 2022 National Grid intends to make £11-12 million available over a 5-year period to National Landscapes  and National Parks in England and Wales.  

What are the benefits of undergrounding? Back in 2015 the National Grid published a technical report on undergrounding high voltage electricity transmission lines. This looked at the technical merits and challenges associated with underground lines compared to installing overhead lines. While costs will vary depending upon length, power, voltage, and ground conditions; the operation, maintenance, and energy losses over the life of the connection are broadly the same for undergrounding as for overhead lines. The report found ‘The use of underground cables has a long-term positive visual impact when compared with the use of overhead lines, and in some instances this will be the preferred choice’ (page 8). 

Given the future pipeline for NSIP projects will consist of significant numbers of energy projects coming forward, the Government consulted on an updated suite of energy NPSs. In November 2023, the Government published the consultation response to planning for new energy infrastructure. On the presumption for OHL except in nationally designated landscapes, some environmental organisations commented that this should be expanded to all biodiverse areas, including those adjacent to nationally designated areas. Similarly, a few local government respondents called for the presumption to be expanded to areas of local or historic value. They suggested these areas could equally benefit from the starting presumption and their lack of inclusion risked damaging the local character, biodiversity, and value of these areas. Some members of the public and local authorities expressed concern about the visual impact of OHLs, describing them as ugly and/or a blot on the landscape. Some respondents described: 

  • OHL as being highly damaging to habitats and bird strikes into power lines as being a major killer acknowledged in the national policy statements. 
  • OHL as being less resilient in extreme weather than underground cables or sub-sea grids. 
  • OHL causing significant damage to landscape, archaeology and cultural heritage including the settings of AONB (even when the pylons are outside of the AONB), scheduled monuments and listed buildings. 
  • How forcing pylons upon communities without genuine alternatives is not fair. 

For national landscapes and national parks, the selection criteria for awarding LEI funding takes account of: 

  • The reduction of existing electricity transmission infrastructure on publicly accessible viewpoints, and general visual resource experienced by local communities and/or visitors to the area. 
  • Helping to foster regional and local landscape diversity and distinctiveness (informed by Natural England’s National Character Area profiles).  
  • The other environmental benefits the project will bring – such as protecting or enhancing biodiversity and/or historic features. 
  • The contribution to sustainable social and economic development in the area. 

What are some of the challenges? Underground has other financial, environmental, and socio-economic factors that should also be considered. 

  • Transmission lines intended for open-air use are not suitable for burial underground as they produce heat that cannot dissipate through soil. This means underground lines must be insulated, adding additional expense. Some studies indicate that the cost to install the same length of wire underground can be 10 times more than the equivalent work above-ground. For example, a study from the Institute of Engineering and Technology (IET) and Parsons Brinkerhoff published back in 2012 found OHL was the cheapest transmission technology for any given route length or circuit capacity, with the lifetime cost estimates varying between £2.2m and £4.2m per kilometre. This compares to lifetime cost estimates varying between £10.2m and £24.1m per kilometre for underground cable direct buried; and to £12.9 million to £23.9 million for undergrounding using a deep tunnel. National Grid’s technical report found to match overhead line thermal performance for a 400kV double circuit, as many as 12 separate cables in four separate trenches may be needed if undergrounding, resulting in a work area up to 65 metres wide. 
  • Underground wires have a shorter lifespan than their above-ground counterparts. This is a result of corrosion. Indeed, there are already a limited number of cable manufacturers across the world particularly for cables at the high voltages required by National Grid. 
  • Routine maintenance is more difficult, and service restoration can take longer as it can be harder to pinpoint the exact location of the interruption. 
  • Repairing faults can take longer due to the excavation necessary to make the repair, after which the area must be re-landscaped and restored to its previous state.
  • Environmental impacts result from undergrounding cables – this can pose a threat to sensitive and protected species and habitats and potential damage to archaeological heritage. 

Should more undergrounding take place in rural areas? The Government has not laid down any further rules on the circumstances requiring the use of undergrounding, therefore, the secretary of state must weigh the feasibility, cost, and any harm of the undergrounding against: 

  • The adverse implications of the OHL proposal. 
  • The cost and feasibility of re-routing OHL or mitigation proposals for the relevant line section. 
  • The cost and feasibility of the reconfiguration, rationalisation, and use of underground cabling of proximate existing or proposed electricity networks infrastructure. 

The secretary of state should therefore only grant development consent for underground sections of a proposed line over an overhead alternative if they are satisfied that the benefits accruing from the former proposal clearly outweigh any extra economic, social, or environmental impacts that it presents, the mitigation hierarchy has been followed, and that any technical obstacles associated with it are surmountable. While arguments in favour of undergrounding were seen in response to the Government’s consultation on draft national policy statements for energy infrastructure, the starting presumption remains for OHL with the exception of nationally designated landscapes. 

Where next? The IET and Parsons Brinckerhoff study concluded that ‘no one technology can cover, or is appropriate in, every circumstance, and thus financial cost cannot be used as the only factor in the choice of one technology over another in a given application’. On 22 November 2023, Claire Coutinho, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero announced a new programme to deliver transformation of the electricity network. This includes plans to halve the time it takes to build new transmission infrastructure, to reduce the time taken for viable projects to connect to the grid, to introduce a community benefits package for communities who host transmission infrastructure, and to run a national communications campaign to improve public understanding of electricity infrastructure and its benefits. The Government is proposing a package whereby local communities will receive around £200,000/km (~£320,000/mile) for overhead lines, £40,000/km (~£60,000/mile) for underground cables, and £200,000 per substation. It will be for the local community to decide in consultation with the developer what projects they would like to support. No specific references were made to undergrounding or to rural communities. How will rural communities be involved in the design, development, and delivery of future electricity infrastructure – and how much undergrounding do we want to see in the countryside? Watch this space. 

 …………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently evaluating a service that supports older people to maintain their independence; and reviewing neighbourhood-based initiatives (NBI). Jessica also sits on the board of a charity supporting  rural communities across Cambridgeshire and is a member of her local Patient Participation Group. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

What can we do to solve the shortage of farm vets?

What can we do to solve the shortage of farm vets?

Commentators, farmers and the veterinary profession have been reporting on a recruitment and retention crisis within farm animal practice for a number of years. While 10 new veterinary schools have opened at five universities over the last decade or so research from the Farm Animal Veterinary Society (FAVS) indicates that many undergraduate students may not opt to enter farm animal practice after graduation. What more can be done to support and encourage students and vets to work in farm animal practice? Jessica Sellick investigates.   ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

It was at the start of the Bronze Age (approximately 3000 BC), that a man named Urlugaledinna, who lived in the Mesopotamia region (now Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Kuwait), was known to be an expert at healing animals. Much later, in 1761, Claude Bourgelat founded the first dedicated veterinary school in Lyon (France) and the profession formally began. It was the work of the Odiham Agricultural Society, formed in May 1783, that led to the establishment of Britain’s first veterinary college in 1791, and a professional group dedicated to animal medicine. Initially veterinary medicine focused on horses (influenced by the needs of the British Army), but over time this expanded to cattle and other livestock, dogs, other companion animals and exotic animals. 

From when the original TV series All Creatures Great and Small was first aired back in 1978 through its reboot in 2020; and from the fly-on-the-wall documentary series ‘Vets in Practice’ (1997-2002) through to the Yorkshire Vet – these programmes have followed the work of students in training or vets at work. Similarly, shows such as Clarkson’s Farm, Springtime on the Farm and This Farming Life all highlight the care and connection farmers have to their animals, and the vital role vets play today in helping to look after animal health and welfare. 

In England, to become a vet you need to complete a veterinary degree approved by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS). Full-time veterinary degrees typically take 5-6 years, with a faster-track 4-year course available for some science graduates. 5 GCSEs at grades 9-4 (A*-C) including English, Maths and Science and 3 A-Levels (or equivalent) including biology and chemistry are typically required, with entry to courses highly competitive. Upon graduation, vets may work in general practice from where some then move on to specialise in farm animals. 

While there is high demand for places in veterinary schools the profession faces an ongoing recruitment and retention problem – particularly within farm animal practice. How many farm animal vets do we have, how many do we need, why is there a workforce shortage and what can we do about it? 

How many vets do we have, and how many do farm animal practice? The RCVS maintains records on the number of veterinary surgeons joining and leaving the UK veterinary profession through the RCVS Register. Data can be broken down by the number joining the Register for the first time, the number moving from one registration to another category, and the number being restored to the Register after some time away. These figures show a steady increase in the number of new joiners between 2014 and 2018, and a drop between 2020 and 2021: there was 2,782 joining in 2019 compared to 2,119 in 2021 taking the 2021 figures back to 2014 levels. Alongside this, the number of vets leaving UK practice has been increasing as they move to another category or leave the Register entirely. The total number joining minus the total number who have left means the numbers joining the UK-practising category of the Register has fallen since 2019.

In parallel, 2,370 students enrolled on to veterinary science degree programmes in 2022, a fall of 290 (or 10.9%) on the previous year.  

In February 2023 there were an estimated 28,920 UK practising veterinary surgeons, and 2,342 veterinary surgeons who were non practising. In the same period there were 22,131 registered veterinary nurses. The RCVS has approximately 144 accredited veterinary practices with farm animal general practice. 

Respondents to the last Survey of the Veterinary Profession back in 2019 found while the proportion of veterinary surgeons working in clinical practice was stable overall, there had been an increase in the proportion of those working in small animal practice, and a decrease in those working in mixed practice. In 2019, 56.4% of veterinary surgeons work was in small animal only (including exotics) – an increase from 48.9% in 2010; 13.4% were working in mixed practice (a decline from 22.1% in 2010); and just 3.7% were working in farm animal practice/production animal practice, a slight decrease from 3.8% in 2010.   

How many do we need? According to the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Government Analysis Function, in England in 2021, there were 105,200 farm holdings with a total farmed area of 9 million hectares. Of these holdings, 30% were grazing livestock in lowland areas (32,000 farms), 12% grazing livestock in less favoured areas (12,200 farms), 5% dairy holdings (5,600 farms), 2% poultry (2,500 farms) and 2% pigs (1,800 farms). A further 7% of holdings were mixed (7,200 farms). In 2021, across the UK there were 190 million poultry, 33 million sheep and 9.6 million cattle. 

There are no figures available on the number of vets per farm or per farm animal. An academic paper on a farm animal only practice in South West England found that while only 16% of holdings were dairy farms, they accounted for 79% of practice turnover. Here 33% of professional fees were related to fertility work – with the proportion of time spent on fertility increasing as a herd size increased. In the beef sector, 37% of medicines prescribed were antibiotics, with 64% of these for respiratory conditions. Paraprofessional services contributed 10% to overall turnover of which 69% was foot trimming. The authors highlighted the potential of further data collection on time services and fees; as well as benchmarking between different farm types. 

Similarly, descriptions of what being a farm vet involves day-to-day highlight the varied role and how it changes according to the season. According to the Survey of the Veterinary Profession in terms of the allocation of working time, time spent on small animals has continued to increase and takes up the largest share of veterinary surgeons time (mainly dogs and cats). Overall, dogs and horses take up the most time on-call, followed by cats and cattle. 52.5% of veterinary surgeons carry out routine visits to clients – fewer than in 2014 (65%). In a typical month veterinary surgeons deal with 3-4 emergency cases out of hours away from the practice and 1 at the practice (with actual numbers varying considerably).

Week commencing 19 February 2024 Vet Record had 931 veterinary jobs advertised – including 83 positions in farm and large animal practices, and 33 specific farm veterinarian roles. While positions are being advertised this does not tell us about potential candidates and applications. For example, a survey by the British Veterinary Association (BVA) in spring 2022 found 86% of respondents representing organisations working with companion animals reported that they had received three applications or fewer when advertising a veterinary surgeon vacancy; and almost two in five respondents (38%) said it took them more than 6-months to fill a vacancy.      

The Government publishes a list of shortage occupations as part of its points-based immigration system. If a role is in short supply non-UK residents can apply for them and while a visa is required the criteria is more relaxed for a Skilled Worker visa. Veterinarians – all jobs – in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are on the list of shortage occupations (occupation code 2216). 

In April 2023 Government Veterinary Services announced that it was considering a new veterinary programme to attract more vets into Government veterinary roles – and called on vets to shape the programme.   

All of this information does not tell us about retention – what is staff turnover? Data from the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) has found the turnover of veterinarians and veterinary technicians is approximately 25% [one in four people working in these roles is either leaving or starting a new job at any given time]. At the same time, there is 1 applicant for every 10 veterinary jobs, suggesting some practices are consistently understaffed. Back in the UK, Vet Futures surveys of vet students and recent graduates suggest 41-50% of respondents feel their expectations were not being met, with a cohort of respondents also more likely to say they intended to leave the profession. But these figures do not reveal how many respondents will go on to leave the profession – either temporarily or permanently. 

While it does not appear we centrally forecast and analyse demand and supply for the farm animal veterinary workforce, the evidence does suggest there is a shortage of farm vets. 

Why is there a workforce shortage? According to the British Veterinary Association (BVA) a combination of factors are putting members under considerable strain leading to a ‘workforce crisis’ and ‘storm of shortages’. These factors include: 

  • Capacity: problems recruiting and retaining veterinary surgeons. A BVA member survey in autumn 2022 found 66% of respondents working with companion animals rated their job-related stress as poor, and 44% rated their work-life balance as poor.   
  • Rising caseloads, including a significant increase in pet ownership during COVID-19 pandemic. Research has shown that 18-34 year olds with children under 10 years of age were most likely to acquire a cat or dog during COVID-19, and that ‘pandemic pets’ experience more frequent vet consultations in an average year compared with the total.  
  • Immigration restrictions following the UK’s exit from the European Union. Three surveys of non-UK European veterinary surgeons carried out by the Institute for Employment Studies suggests new EU registrations are levelling off, whereas in previous years they had been rising – with researchers finding this could seriously impact upon the meat production sector where 90% of vets working in public health are estimated to be non-UK EU graduates.  
  • Cost-of-living crisis resulting in veterinary practices experiencing increased costs for energy, equipment and medicines, combined with increasing financial pressures on pet owners. 

Other studies have looked specifically at the farm animal sector, finding: 

  • Teaching in veterinary schools is focused on small animals so graduates lack the confidence to go straight into farm practice. 
  • Lack of understanding about career pathways, availability and opportunities within the farm animal sector amongst undergraduate veterinary students.
  • Lack of knowledge about farming and not feeling confident in communicating with farmers. 
  • The feminisation of the veterinary profession – and issues around gender pay gap and sex discrimination, particularly within productive animals practice.  
  • The economic pressures facing farm clients who need to balance productivity and profitability with animal welfare, prevention and therapeutic treatments. 

The charity Vetlife provides support to the UK veterinary community and their families who have emotional, health or financial concerns, whilst seeking to prevent such situations arising in the future. In February 2023 the charity published data for the previous year showing demand for all three of its support services had increased. Its  24/7 confidential helpline received 3,503 contacts in 2022, up 3.3% from the 2021 total of 3,390. Its Health Support service, providing mental health care, saw a 15.5% increase in referrals during 2022. Most markedly, its Financial Support service received a 236% increase in applications. Reflecting on this increased demand, the charity believes it is the result of the national economic backdrop, and some factors specific to the veterinary industry (i.e., meeting client expectations in a difficult financial and social environment). 

Evidence suggests that veterinarians are commonly exposed to occupational stressors which can lead to psychological distress, which typically results in mental health disorders such as depression, anxiety, and burnout and can, in some cases, culminate in suicide attempts or suicide deaths. Veterinary professionals frequently find themselves acting as accidental counsellors, playing a vital role in supporting the wellbeing of farming communities and helping farmers outside of their typical responsibilities. 

What can we do to get more vets working in rural communities? The BVA highlights the role of farm vets in keeping productive animals healthy, optimising welfare and safeguarding public health; as well as supporting environmental goals, improving productivity, reducing carbon footprints and supporting biodiversity on farms. How can we encourage more veterinary professionals to work in farm animal practice, and retain those already working in this field?      

We need to build on approaches that recruit people from rural areas, and offer training that includes farm animal experience. Surveys of farm animal practitioners have shown that having family who commercially farm, having support from an experienced colleague while on call, and performing more fam work increase the likelihood of practitioners staying in farm animal practice. 

Extra Mural Studies (EMS) are a vital part of a student’s veterinary degree as they provide opportunities for them to implement practical skills and experience acquired during their veterinary programme. Challenges around the accessibility, availability and affordability of placements has led the RCVS from 2024 onwards to reduce compulsory EMS requirements by 8 weeks; with each student now needing to complete 10 weeks of animal handling and 20 weeks of clinical training (compared to the previous requirement of 12 weeks and 26 weeks respectively). Providing other opportunities for students to gain farm animal experience is important. Vet Partners, for example, offers a free summer farm vet academy where final year students can gain on-farm experience. And the RCVS is working with veterinary and agricultural organisations to build a Farm Vet Champions community with free, on demand, Continuing Professional Development (CPD). 

We need to continue to build workforce models that encourage multidisciplinary team working in a farm animal context – where farm clinicians (vets, nurses, therapists) work with farmers, farm managers, stockpersons and other professionals (e.g. foot trimmers, scanning service providers). Here veterinarians are part of multi-professional teams rather than solo practitioners working in an isolated environment.      

Can we use technology more so face-to-face veterinary resources are concentrated where they are needed most? Advances in technology have already had considerable impact on vets’ ability to diagnose and treat disease – from transmitting images for vets to make an initial diagnosis through to global positioning systems used to identify and monitor individual animals. Similarly, farmers use farm management software which indicates events that are due to happen, animals that need attention and key performance indicators. How can digital technology further support pre-planned health checks, routine, preventative and advisory work that veterinary professionals do?  

Finally, we need to address wider workforce issues in rural localities (e.g. affordable housing, broadband and mobile phone coverage, transport, access to services, community facilities, schools and college provision, employment etc.). Place is an important component in people committing to jobs, and they also consider the needs of partners and dependents when doing so. We need a countryside which affords these opportunities if we want rural communities to become more, not less, sustainable. 

What does the future hold? It is clear that there are workforce challenges in farm veterinary medicine due to high demand but low supply and that this is not a new situation. Nor is this situation unique to the UK as other countries report a shortage of vets.  

In March 2024 the CMA published the findings of its initial review of how veterinary services are bought and sold. In addition to hearing about acute staff shortages and the impact this has on individual professionals, they identified multiple concerns with the market (e.g. medicine costs, weak competition and lack of choice in some areas) that they believe should be investigated further. 

The Animal Health and Welfare Pathway,  which includes a funded annual visit  from a chosen vet or team of vets; alongside the (potential) spread of infectious diseases and (future) diseases of pandemic potential means there has never been a greater need or time for farm animal veterinarians. 

The RCVS recently closed its ‘Survey of the Veterinary and Veterinary Nurse Professions 2024’. The survey is carried out every 4-5 years and was last conducted in 2019. Back then, despite the downsides of low pay, hard work and feeling undervalued, veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses said they loved their work and their profession. What will the 2024 findings show? Watch this space. 

 …………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently evaluating a service that supports older people to maintain their independence; and reviewing neighbourhood based initiatives (NBI). Jessica also sits on the board of a charity supporting  rural communities across Cambridgeshire. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

When five becomes four – does a shorter working week benefit rural areas? 

When five becomes four – does a shorter working week benefit rural areas? 

Back in 2018 Autonomy, a research organisation, began working with charities, businesses and public organisations to deliver working time reduction pilots. Over the last five years, for many the prospect of a four-day week has been enticing. In 2022 4 Day Week Global published the results from a pilot with 33 companies across the United States and Ireland. Meanwhile, the results of the world’s biggest ever four-day working week pilot which took place in the UK were published in February 2023. People in the UK work some of the longest hours in Europe and yet our productivity lags behind. With the four-day week gaining traction, what does it mean for rural communities? Jessica Sellick investigates.   ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The five-day working week has been the norm in the United Kingdom (UK) since the first half of the twentieth century. While the Government introduced legislation to reduce working hours in factories and prescribed regular breaks; it was the result of a number of campaigns (by trade unions, employees, employers, religious bodies) from the 1840s onwards that created a groundswell for a more formalised break from the working week. Initially, this saw a shift from ‘Saint Monday’, where skilled artisan workers worked Tuesday-Saturday, to ‘rational recreation’, with people encouraged to undertake leisure activities on a Saturday afternoon (e.g. going to football matches, for countryside walks). With the adoption of the weekend left to individual employers, it took a further 50-years for it to gain widespread traction. By the end of the 19th century there was a concerted effort to marking out Saturday afternoon and Sunday as the weekend – and this subsequently led to all-day Saturday and Sunday becoming a break for many employed workers. Much more recently, the introduction of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (in England, Scotland and Wales), means that an employee cannot work more than 48 hours a week on average – normally averaged over 17 weeks – unless they opt out or work in an area with exceptions (e.g. armed forces, emergency services).

Since then COVID-19 has led to significant changes to the way some people work, leading researchers at the New Economics Foundation and other commentators to call for shorter working time to be at the heart of post-pandemic recovery. Other drivers include artificial intelligence (AI) – with a study by Autonomy suggesting a four-day week (32 hours as full-time equivalent) could be achieved by 2033 for 8.8 million workers (28% of the workforce in Great Britain) – and climate change, with one study showing that a 10% reduction in hours is associated with an 8.6% fall in carbon footprint. What is a four-day week, and what does it mean for rural areas?   

What is the four-day week? There is no one-size-fits-all approach to the four-day week. Models include a ‘condensed work week’ where organisations continue with their current 40-hour week and spread this over four-days with a 10-hour shift per day; or a ‘reduced work week’ where organisations reduce the week to 32 hours comprising 8 hour shifts per day over four-days. 4 Day Week Global, for example, calls for a ‘100-80-100’ model where workers receive 100% of their current pay, work 80% of their existing hours, and maintain 100% of their current productivity. Some organisations implement a ‘universal day off’ where the entire business suspends operations, while others have a ‘distributed day off’ where employees stagger their additional work day off. The four-day week is different from flexible working which is a way of working that suits an employee’s needs (e.g. having flexible start and finish times, or working from home).  

There have been a number of reduced work week pilots running across the world in recent years – with 17 countries participating including Australia, Canada, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Sweden, United Arab Emirates, United States and here in the UK. In addition to Government sponsored tests, many companies or municipalities have undertaken pilots of their own. These pilots are all at different stages, with some at the planning stage, some underway, and others being made permanent. What are some of the benefits and disadvantages of introducing a four-day week? 

What are the benefits? Iceland was one of the first countries to trial a four-day week back in 2015. Participants included Reykjavík City Council and the national government (more than 2,500 workers, equating to 1% of Iceland’s working population); as well as preschools, offices, social service providers, and hospitals. Employees moved from a 40 hour week to a 35 or 36 hour week. Between 2015 and 2019 data shows that productivity remained the same or improved. Since then 86% of Iceland’s workforce have either moved to shorter hours for the same pay, or will gain the right to do so. 

Back in July 2019 in Japan, Microsoft announced a four-day week trial. Staff were encouraged to work more efficiently in shorter hours by (i) reducing their standard meetings to 30 minutes; (ii) reducing the number of participants in a meeting to a maximum of 5 people; and/or (iii) using Microsoft Teams for collaboration in the first instance. While employees productivity increased by 40% it is unclear if the company will replicate the trial in other locations. 

Between December 2020 and June 2022 New Zealand trialled a four-day week. This saw 80 employees at Unilever participate in a 100:80:100 model. Absenteeism dropped by 34%, employee stress levels reduced by 33% and work life conflict fell by 67%. In November 2023 Unilever announced it would be continuing the experiment in New Zealand and extending the trial to Australia. In Australia, a larger pilot involving 20 companies began in August 2022 and lasted six months. Employees worked 80% of their usual hours with no pay reduction. 64% of employees experienced reductions in burnout and 38% felt less stressed with the four-day week. Time spent commuting reduced by 36 minutes per person during the trial.

In February 2023 the results of the UK pilot were published. This involved 61 companies and 2,900 workers trialling a four-day working week between June and December 2022. The companies included those in the marketing/advertising sector (18%), followed by professional services (16%) and charities/not-for-profits (11%). Companies applied one of five models: (1) fifth day stoppage – where the company shut down operations for one additional day a week; (2) Staggered – where staff take alternating days off; (3) decentralised – where different departments operate different work patterns; (4) annualised – where staff work a 32-hour average working week calculated on the scale of a year; or (5) conditional – staff entitlement to the four-day week is tied to ongoing performance monitoring. 

The findings of the UK pilot include:  

  • 71% of employees participating reported lower levels of burnout, and 39% said they were less stressed, compared to at the start of the trial. Levels of anxiety, fatigue and sleep issues decreased, and mental and physical health improved. 
  • When employees were asked how they used their additional time off, the most popular response was ‘life admin’ (i.e., tasks such as shopping or household chores). Employees described how this allowed them to have a proper break for leisure activities on Saturdays and Sundays. Some parents with young children highlighted a reduction in childcare expenses. All reported being able to do more of the activities they enjoyed during the pilot – with some developing new hobbies and interests.      
  • 54% of employees said they felt increasingly able to combine paid work with caring responsibilities, and 62% reported it easier to combine work with social life. 
  • Researchers found a 65% reduction in sick days, and a 57% drop in the number of staff leaving when comparing the trial period with the same period in the previous year. 
  • Company revenue barely changed – and increased by an average of 1.4% for the 23 organisations able to provide data. 
  • 15% of employees said that no amount of money would induce them to accept a five-day schedule over a four-day week. 
  • 56 of the 61 companies said they intended to continue the four-day working week, with 18 companies confirming they had made the change permanent. 

In Canada researchers looked at data from July 2022 to June 2023 for 30 companies employing 3,500 workers. Each company applied a four-day 32-hour work week, or a 40-hour work week over four-days, and workers did not get a pay reduction under either model. 90% of workers said their productivity had either increased or stayed the same, and 93% wanted to continue with their shortened and compressed work schedules indefinitely.  

In May 2023, Ireland commenced its second four-day week pilot, based on the 100-80-100 model. It follows an initial pilot with 12 companies in 2022 none of whom returned to a five-day working week. 

Across all these countries, 4-Day Week Global have highlighted some of the overarching benefits of a four-day week for employees and employers: 

  • Employees involved in pilots report a reduction in burnout. 
  • Employees report an increase in work ability. 
  • Employers find it easier to recruit staff. 
  • Employee resignations decline.  
  • Some companies see an increase in revenue compared to the same period before the pilot began. 

What are the costs? Not every employee or employer has embraced a four-day week, citing concerns around how it is: 

  • Too rigid an approach when greater flexibility is required in the workplace.
  • Not suitable for all workers in all sectors (e.g. some roles in health, care, defence, banking or criminal justice).   
  • Exacerbating some of the challenges employees who are already stretched with their existing workload face. 
  • Leaving companies with less time to work on organisational development or strategic planning as they focus on day-to-day operations.   

Some of this is borne out of evidence in the UK. The four-day week trial did not work for every business – with some firms exiting the trial early and others yet to move all their operations to the format full-time. For example, Allcap, an engineering and industrial supplies company, participated in the pilot because they wanted to give 40 employees across 5 sites extra rest days. A full order book and reduced headcount meant all employees were offered one work day off every fortnight instead of a four-day week. Allcap found employees experienced 9 extreme days as opposed to 10 normal workdays and finding cover for employees on rest days was also a struggle. This led Allcap to suspend the trial at 3 of its 5 sites 2-months early. Similarly, Waterwise found staff experienced more stress trying to fit work into fewer days in order to have a longer weekend, and the charity had to focus on doing daily tasks rather than longer-term projects or strategic work. Citizens Advice Gateshead appointed the equivalent of 3 additional full-time employees so 45 contact centre staff could participate in a trial. As the busiest days at the contact centre tend to be Mondays and Fridays it only left staff with three week days to take their day off. While the pilot exceeded expectations in terms of its benefit to other staff at Citizens Advice Gateshead, if the four-day week cannot work across the whole charity, including the contact centre team, it is unlikely to become permanent and the trial is being extended in the meantime before a permanent decision is made.

More recently, the supermarket chain Morrisons made changes to its four-day week for head office staff. Originally implemented in 2020, staff were scheduled to work 13 Saturdays per year (one Saturday every 4-weeks) but following feedback from staff the supermarket will spread their 37.5 hours over four-and-a-half days a week, dropping the weekend working.  

Legally, most employment legislation is concentrated around a five-day working week. While employers involved in pilots have made operational changes to staff terms and conditions, not all have made changes to employee contracts. This not only has implications for employees terms and conditions, but also to their pension arrangements and the accrual of leave. 

In October 2023 the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) published guidance for Local Authorities in England to consider in adopting a four-day week where staff have their working hours reduced by 20% but retain 100% of their pay. While the Government supports an individual’s right to request flexible working, it does not support a four-day working week in Local Authorities because it does not believe that it delivers local taxpayers’ value-for-money.         

What does it mean for rural communities? There is no evidence base documenting how widespread the four-day week is in rural areas in England. There are examples of rural organisations piloting a four-day week. For example, South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) has been trialling a four-day week since January 2023 to help them attract and keep colleagues, to fill vacant posts rather than relying on more expensive agency staff, and to reduce costs. The Bennett Institute for Public Policy at the University of Cambridge independently reviewed the trial after 3-months. Researchers looked at different service areas such as planning, housing, corporate services and finance. They found 9 out of the 16 service areas showed substantial improvement, and the remaining 7 areas were either at similar levels or saw a slight decline. 

There are calls from other sectors to implement a four-day week to boost workforce recruitment and retention, particularly in rural areas (e.g. health, hospitality and catering, logistics). Indeed Agricultural Recruitment Specialists have looked at whether the four-day week is beneficial for the farming industry. While noting that farming is different from corporate jobs (e.g. dependency on nature/weather, livestock and crops need looking after 365 days a year), technological advancements, automation and drones are reducing the amount of manual labour needed on farms. With many farmers working an average of 65 hours a week, and 40% of farmers surveyed by Farmers Weekly wanting to know how to improve their work-life balance, Agricultural Recruitment Specialists suggest the four-day week could be an asset to the farming world. 

Information from other countries suggests the four-day week is being adopted in rural municipalities. In Canada for example, Ontario municipalities that have permanently moved to a ‘compressed’ work week (10 hour days four-days a week to recruit and retain staff) include Aylmer, Zorra, Springwater and French River. Four-day work week trials have also taken place in Merritt (British Columbia), Saint John (New Brunswick) and in the District of Guysborough in Nova Scotia. 

In the United States 2,100 rural schools in 26 states are taking Mondays or Fridays off to help recruit more teachers, save money and boost pupil attendance. Some schools have reported that teacher applications have increased four-fold and overhead costs decreased since the four-day week began while others are monitoring what impact this is having on pupil attainment – with some studies indicating that high achievers are more affected by changing school schedules than lower-achieving pupils; and other studies suggesting that a four-day week is not compromising academic performance. Research has also shown that parents with younger school age children, with children who are receiving special educational needs provision or free school meals were less supportive of a four-day week compared to other cohorts of parents/carers.      

Back in the UK, in December 2023 civil servants at the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), with support from the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), submitted a petition calling for a four-day week pilot scheme for 21,000 employees. In response, and echoing guidance issued by DLUHC, a Government spokesperson confirmed how “there are no plans for this. Value-for-money should be provided to the taxpayer”.  

Where next? In February 2022 the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales published a report on the four-day week from Autonomy. This considered the arguments for and against a shorter working week, the potential barriers the Welsh Government might face and an implementation strategy. There are calls for a pilot to be developed in the devolved public sector and the Welsh Government is working with the Workforce Partnership Council (WPC) and trade unions to look at the issue in more detail. In Scotland the Government formally launched its 4-day week pilot in January 2024 – with around 140 staff at South of Scotland enterprise doing a 32-hour week without loss of pay. In Northern Ireland a study by Hays found 43% of employers would be more likely to consider offering a four-day week if staff spent all of their work days in the office rather than on a hybrid basis. 

The key question is whether people who move to a four-day week can achieve what they were doing over five-days with fewer hours and less time? The results of the pilots are in and they suggest a four-day week is coming (in Wales), starting (in Scotland) and here to stay (in England). Are four-day weeks a good or a bad thing? And how doable are they in rural areas? The evidence so far suggests it may work well for some and never work for others. Watch this space…  

 …………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently evaluating a service that supports older people to maintain their independence; and reviewing neighbourhood based initiatives (NBI). Jessica also sits on the board of a charity supporting rural communities across Cambridgeshire. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

AI

What does AI mean for rural communities? 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a relatively new but rapidly growing technological field, and it is increasingly shaping the way we interact with the world. How is AI benefitting rural communities, and what more could it do? Jessica Sellick investigates. ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

AI technologies can be found in a wide range of everyday applications – from virtual assistants and navigation software, through to online banking and facial recognition. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is being deployed across many sectors to assist in tasks such as decision making and improving productivity. What is AI, and how can it be deployed to benefit rural communities? 

What is Artificial Intelligence? There is no universally agreed upon definition of artificial intelligence (AI) or AI technologies. Academics Haroon Sheikh, Corien Prins and Erik Schrijvers describe how it can be defined according to algorithms; by the imitation by computers of the intelligence inherent in humans; as a technology that enables machines to imitate various ‘complex human skills’; or an imitation or stimulation of something we do not yet fully understand ourselves: human intelligence! In seeking to define AI, research by psychologists, behavioural scientists and neurologists amongst others have opened up discussions around autonomy, human intelligence and innovation. All of this has led Haroon Sheikh and colleagues to adopt an open definition of AI where it applies to ‘systems that display intelligent behaviour by analysing their environment and taking actions – with some degree of autonomy – to achieve specific goals’.  The Alan Turing Institute defines AI as ‘intelligence, such as reasoning, making decisions, learning from mistakes, communicating, solving problems, and moving around the physical world’. 

Back in March 2023 the Government published the UK Science and Technology Framework. This set out the Government’s strategic vision for AI as one of 5 critical technologies. The Framework described AI as ‘machines that perform tasks normally performed by human intelligence, especially when machines learn from data how to do those tasks’. The Framework reinforced the Government’s commitment to delivering the National AI Strategy published back in September 2021, which was focused around the UK being an AI superpower, supporting the transition to an AI-enabled economy, and ensuring the governance of AI technologies is right.   

The Office for Artificial Intelligence (Office for AI), part of the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology (DSIT), defines AI as ‘the use of digital technology to create systems capable of performing tasks commonly thought to require intelligence’. As a research field it spans philosophy, logic, statistics, computer science, mathematics, neuroscience, linguistics, cognitive psychology and economics. While the field is constantly evolving, it has two distinct characteristics: (i) it involves machines using statistics to find patterns in large amounts of data; and (ii) it involves the ability to perform repetitive tasks with data without the need for constant human guidance.   

In August 2023, the Office for AI published a policy paper on AI regulation. This further described AI systems, or AI technologies, as ‘products and services that are adaptable and autonomous’. The paper sets out how the Government intends to support innovation while providing a framework to ensure risks are identified and addressed. In October 2023 the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology committee opened an inquiry into the governance of AI. 

More recently, in November 2023, the Prime Minister hosted a global summit on AI safety. This resulted in 28 countries agreeing to the Bletchley Declaration on AI safety. The UK and United States Governments also announced new National AI Safety Institutes. 

Why is AI capable of, and what is driving its use? AI is being used for linguistic tasks, computer tasks, and to improve the performance of robots. Some examples include:

  • Natural language processing (NLP): AI is being used for speech-to-text converters, online tools that summarise text, for chatbots, and for speech recognition and translation. 
  • Programming computer systems: AI is being used on computer systems to assist in the interpretation of images and videos (e.g. facial recognition, medical imaging, video surveillance) and to develop driverless vehicles. 
  • Robotics: AI is being used on machines to carry out actions (e.g. medical robots performing surgery, self-navigating drones).  

These AI developments are possible because of advances in data, computing power and investment. Machine learning (ML) systems are training on larger data sets. For example, ChatGPT 3.5 was trained using 300 billion words obtained from internet text. The amount of computing power used to train ML models has increased – a Foundation Model released in 2020 used 600,000 times more computing power than a comparable Model in 2012. In March 2023 the Government announced a £900 million investment towards a new supercomputer, known as Isambard-AI, and hosted at the University of Bristol. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) also announced a £10 million investment to a group of universities (including Bristol) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, and a £30 million award to the Science and Technology Facilities Council’s laboratory in Cheshire. 

While these advances already are (and will be) impressive, of greater significance is their uptake by society. Discussion has moved on from digital transformation to generative AI whereby our everyday lives are increasingly being shaped algorithmically.  And while some citizens are excited by the possibility of AI saving time and handling mundane or difficult tasks, others worry about the loss of human jobs and fear AI will become so powerful it will outsmart people. 

There are also concerns around the concentration of Large Language Models in the hands of a few technology companies; privacy and data protection around the use of data to train AI models (data mining or harvesting at a mass scale); the ability of AI models to generate false information; and a lack of skills in the current UK workforce to develop AI.    

How are rural communities using AI – and what do they have to gain? 

McKinsey has estimated that generative AI technologies have the potential to add between $2.6 trillion and $4.4 trillion annually to the global economy. AI is already found across a wide range of sectors and services. Some examples of how AI is being developed or deployed in a rural context include: 

  • Agriculture: choosing optimum crops for weather conditions, monitoring crops, improving resource efficiency, monitoring livestock and detecting the early signs of disease, employing automated workers or tasks (e.g. robotic fertilisers). 
  • Transport: monitoring deliveries or traffic status, self-driving or autonomous vehicles, or ‘pay with your face’ to use public transport. 
  • Education: for adaptive tutoring or instructional assistants that explain difficult concepts to students; to undertake automated routine tasks around lesson planning; and drafting communications with parents/carers and the local community.  
  • Healthcare: medical imaging, patient monitoring, or identifying patients at higher risk of developing certain conditions. 
  • Policing: gathering intelligence, predicting crime and facial recognition tools.
  • Weather: to generate scenarios or develop algorithms that mine social media posts to learn from the language used and the pictures shared to deduce whether a weather event is happening and to what extent. 

While many of the issues rural communities face may be shared by their urban counterparts (e.g. access to services, economic development, climate change), how they are experienced and the solutions that are needed are different in a rural context. While much of the focus to date has been on the deployment of AI in agriculture, there are opportunities for rural communities to engage AI in other new and novel ways – with examples ranging from building weather/climate resilience through to reducing the impact of social isolation.  

Is there an (emerging) urban-rural AI gap? Some researchers suggest data is more likely to be harvested from rural residents than their urban counterparts. For example, a study by Douglas Leith on data being harvested by smart phones revealed Android phones give Google 20 times more data that iPhones send to Apple. On the one hand, this suggests that where android phones are more dominant in rural areas the user’s data is more likely to be harvested. But on the other hand, this potentially exposes rural users to some technological downsides regarding data privacy, protection and ownership. 

Similarly, once gathered, some evidence suggests data is more likely to be used to develop initiatives that benefit urban areas. For example, a scoping review by Jose Guerra and colleagues found that public health AI projects primarily used community based surveillance data collected from rural areas, with the harvested data often used to design public health initiatives of benefit to urban areas. 

Closing this rural AI gap is part of a much broader discussion around digital infrastructure and connectivity, rural proofing within policy-making and investment decision-making, and skills and expertise.  

Data analysis by Ofcom shows that while there has been an increase in gigabit-capable coverage in both urban and rural areas across the UK, there has been a greater increase in urban areas. This is because some providers tend to focus their roll-out on urban areas. Similarly, while the majority of homes and businesses have access to at least decent broadband on a fixed line connection, around half a million premises, mainly in rural areas, currently do not. While Ofcom is seeing small improvements in 4G coverage (partly as a result of initiatives such as the Shared Rural Network), the lack of reliable digital infrastructure and connectivity in some rural areas continues to hamper the ability of communities and businesses to benefit from AI.

Back in October 2022 the White House published a blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights to make automated systems work for the American people. This recommended that systems be made and audited with ‘consultation from diverse communities’, including communities in rural areas which have traditionally been underserved. The blueprint therefore gives rural communities are opportunities to shape the trajectory of these technologies. Back in the UK, while the Government and devolved administrations have published a range of documents and announced investments in AI, alongside a much wider range of parliamentary interest and activity, to what extent is rural proofing taking place? Defra, for example, has developed an AI Community of Interest for colleagues in Defra who are interested in building and sharing knowledge about AI.

There appears to be little consistency in the terminology used to describe the knowledge, skills and roles of AI. While research from Accenture found that 34% of UK organisations had scaled up AI technologies in response to COVID-19, only 27% of UK business leaders described their non-technical workforce as being well-prepared to leverage new technology. The Alan Turing Institute has highlighted the AI skills gap – running from early years through to senior positions in academia and industry. Without consistency in terminology or data collection, it is currently difficult to understand the skills gaps being experienced across the UK. It would be good to recruit and retain AI workers in rural areas – having more AI expertise in rural communities could help to both increase its benefits and take-up but also lead to greater understanding of its challenges.    

Where next? The big shift taking place here is not only around data, models, and tools or their capabilities; but their uptake and the profound ways in which they are impacting society. While many of us are starting to think about AI and its implications, if we don’t keep pace with developments, and indeed shape the agenda, AI is going to create its own vision of rural communities.  …………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently evaluating a service that supports older people to maintain their independence; and reviewing neighbourhood based initiatives (NBI). Jessica also sits on the board of a charity supporting  rural communities across Cambridgeshire. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

plants

What more can we do to protect crops and plants? 

Back in January 2023, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), in partnership with the Forestry Commission and the Scottish and Welsh Governments, published the Plant Biosecurity Strategy for Great Britain. This sets out a 5-year vision for plant health. How is the strategy being implemented, and what does it mean for rural communities? Jessica Sellick investigates. ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

In 2021 approximately 18.6 million tonnes of plants and plant products were imported into the UK. Yet in recent years new pests, pathogens and syndromes have emerged posing possible risks to the UK’s crops and plants. COVID-19 has raised the profile of biosecurity, not only in protecting human health but in also protecting animal health and plant health. Preventing plant pests and diseases from entering Great Britain, stopping or slowing their spread if they are found to be present, and ultimately protecting the nation against plant related hazards remains a key Government priority. What role is the Plant Biosecurity Strategy playing in tackling the growing threat posed by pests and diseases that know no borders?       

What is plant biosecurity? Within the Plant Biosecurity Strategy for Great Britain, it is defined as ‘a set of precautions that aim to prevent the introduction and spread of harmful organisms. These include non-native pests, such as insects, and disease-causing organisms called pathogens, such as some viruses, bacteria and fungi. These pests and pathogens threaten the health of our plants and trees’. According to the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS), ‘biosecurity’ means ‘taking measures to prevent the spread or introduction of harmful organisms. In the UK, these organisms are mostly insects and pathogens that cause plant diseases, such as fungi and bacteria’. The United National Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Committee of Experts on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM) defines a pest as ‘any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent injurious to plants or plant products’. Here biosecurity is ‘a strategic and integrated approach to analysing and managing relevant risks to human, animal and plant life and health and associated risks to the environment’. 

In academic circles, commentators have highlighted how biosecurity can be contested and involve different people, organisations and institutions with a range of values. At a farm level, interest in biosecurity measures have focused on both reducing the risk of entry of new pathogens (external biosecurity) and on reducing the internal dissemination of pathogens (internal biosecurity). Here various measures are used to control agricultural pests – from breeding plants that are resistant to pests through to the use of pesticides. 

As the ultimate goal of biosecurity is the exclusion, eradication or management of risks posed by introduced pests and diseases to plant, animal and human health; it is often seen as an interdisciplinary endeavour. Indeed, biosecurity activities cover a geographical continuum – from being offshore and pre-border (surveillance, screening), to taking place within a country’s territory (locate, contain, eradicate). The publication of the UK Biological Security Strategy in June 2023 sets out the Government’s ambition for the UK to be resilient to a spectrum of biological threats by 2030, including ‘high consequence risks’ to plant health.         

Why is a Plant Biosecurity Strategy needed and what does it contain? Back in 2012, the Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra) convened a Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Taskforce. The group provided advice on threats to tree health and plant biosecurity in the UK and made recommendations about how those threats could be mitigated. In May 2013 the group published its final report. This contained 8 recommendations organised under three themes: 

Theme 1: National context 

  • Develop a prioritised UK Plant Health Risk Register. 
  • Appoint a Chief Plant Health Officer to own the Register and provide leadership for managing those risks. 
  • Develop and implement procedures for preparedness and contingency planning to predict, monitor and control the spread of pests and pathogens. 
  • Review, simplify, and strengthen governance and legislation. 

Theme 2: International context 

  • Improve the use of epidemiological intelligence from EU/other regions. 
  • Strengthen biosecurity to reduce risks at the border and within the UK. 

Theme 3: Capabilities and communication 

  • Develop a modern, user-friendly system to provide quick and intelligent access to information about tree health and plant biosecurity. 
  • Address key skills shortages. 

Alongside consultation with stakeholders, the group’s recommendations informed the first Plant Biosecurity Strategy for Great Britain – published by Defra and the Forestry Commission in April 2014. While plant health policy is devolved, the strategy was developed for Great Britain in recognition of the need to ensure biosecurity governance is coordinated and complementary to meet future challenges. The 2014 strategy set out a vision for what the Government at the time wanted to achieve by 2020: ‘Our vision is to protect plants from pests that have been identified as priorities for action, and to build awareness of the risks from pests, knowledge of how to reduce those risks and to introduce a system of management that will incentivise risk reduction’. To achieve this by 2020, the strategy aimed to deliver: 

  • Plant health services making risk-based decisions within a transparent evidence-based framework. 
  • Greater awareness of plant biosecurity among stakeholders and the public; strengthened international regimes for plant movement. 
  • Enhanced technology and science to detect plant pests. 
  • Managing environments to allow established pests to be controlled. 
  • A revised strategy: it was recognised that the 2014 strategy would need to adapt to changes when they occurred. It was the intention to review the strategy in 2016, and to develop an enhanced programme from 2020. 

The UK’s vote to leave the European Union in June 2016 triggered years of negotiations, concluding in a Withdrawal Agreement in October 2019. This saw the UK formally leave the EU on 31 January 2020 and begin a transition period, this was an 11-month period that allowed time for the UK and EU to negotiate their future relationship, culminating in the signing of a Trade and Cooperation Agreement on 24 December 2020. The Agreement underwent legal revisions with the final version published in April 2021 and updated again in June 2021. Against this backdrop, in 2018, the Government published its 25 Year Environment Plan. This contained commitments to protect crops and reduce the environmental impact of pesticides stating that ‘more can be done in the way we breed our plants for traits beyond productivity, making better use of genetics and the resources held in gene banks to ensure their natural resilience to pests and diseases’ (page 40); and how ‘we will continue to take early, pre-emptive action based on evidence of a threat to stop pests and disease arriving here’ (page 64). 

On 12 January 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) confirmed that a novel coronavirus was the cause of a respiratory illness in a cluster of people in Wuhan City, China. COVID-19 was confirmed to be spreading in the UK by the end of January 2020. In March 2020, the Government imposed a lockdown banning all “non-essential” travel and contact with people outside of one’s household. From July 2020 the Government introduced measures to ease these restrictions. In November 2020, the Government published its COVID-19 Winter Plan. This included a three-tier system to run until spring 2021. In December 2020, a new tier 4 ‘stay at home’ alert level was announced in response to a new COVID variant. A further lockdown began on 6 January 2021, with restrictions lifting from 8 March 2021. This worldwide pandemic led to disrupted trade and a recognition of the need to contain invasive virus outbreaks. In 2021, the Joint Committee on the National Security (JCNSS) undertook an inquiry where it noted “a striking absence of strategic leadership of the UK’s biological security as a whole”, and made a recommendation on establishing a new cross-government centre for biosecurity. 

Amid the UK’s departure from the EU and COVID-19, the Government reviewed its approach to plant biosecurity risks. The latest plant biosecurity strategy was published in January 2023 and focuses on the biosecurity of plants (including trees) and plant products (e.g. vegetables, cut flowers). It covers the period 2023-2028 and builds on the work of the first strategy and the Environment Plan. The latest strategy focuses on 4 key areas: 

1. A world class biodiversity regime: 

  • Enhancing risk and horizon scanning approaches. 
  • Updating and adapting the regulatory regime to reflect the latest threats. 
  • Co-ordinate and strengthen outbreak preparedness activities. 
  • A collaborative international approach including developing a UK Plant Health International Action Plan to deliver activities such as capacity building and technical assistance. 

2. A society that values healthy plants: 

  • Raising awareness and encouraging behaviour change to protect plant health. 
  • Education. 
  • Training. 
  • Citizen science projects. 

3. A biosecure plant supply chain: 

  • Intelligence and monitoring. 
  • Assuring supply chains. 
  • Increasing domestic production. 

4. Enhanced technical capability: 

In reviewing the 2013 Strategy, and developing the 2023 Strategy, some overarching gaps were identified around trade networks (and tracing routes of entry); host distribution (knowing susceptible crop varieties); linking data within the UK and internationally (particularly for surveillance and epidemiological modelling); encouraging public adoption of plant biosecurity behaviours; and avoiding errors in reacting to an outbreak. 

In May 2023, Defra produced a plant health research and development plan to guide the commissioning of plant health research over the next 5-years. This is organised around 6 themes: (i) risk assessment and horizon scanning; (ii) inspections, diagnostics and surveillance; (iii) management of pests and diseases; (iv) resilience and adaptation; (v) plant health related behaviours; and (vi) evaluation. 

What does the strategy, and work underway to implement it, mean for rural communities? Agricultural losses due to plant diseases have been estimated at a global level for wheat (21.5% (10.1–28.1%)), rice (30.0% (24.6–40.9%)), maize (22.5% (19.5–41.1%)), potato (17.2% (8.1–21.0%)) and soybean (21.4% (11.0–32.4%)). An academic study has highlighted how there are 200-400 species yet to be discovered in natural ecosystems and forests globally that may have the potential to expose host plants to a pathogen they have not previously encountered. Some researchers have also argued that agricultural systems based on intensive crop cultures, with limited crop varieties and/or the wide use of chemical products on crops can drive the spread of pests and diseases.   

Strategically, the UK Plant Health Risk Register (UKPHRR) is the pest ranking tool used in Great Britain. It includes pests with UK pest risk analyses (PRAs), pests that are regulated, pests on the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) global database, pests that are intercepted on imports or that have caused outbreaks or may be a threat to the UK. The UK expert advisory Plant Health Risk Group (PHRG) maintains the UKPHRR, provides advice on new and emerging plant health threats, and looks at potential threats identified by Defra’s plant health risk and horizon scanning team. However, only a few pests are actively monitored and a PRA may be required before any action is taken. 

For agricultural crops; pest surveillance, forecasting disease, breeding resistant cultivars, use of pesticides and other practices are vital to limit the contact of crops with pathogens. Operationally, in 2023 the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), part of the Environmental Land Management (ELM) scheme, introduced a new standard on integrated pest management. This includes a payment of £989 per year to complete an IPM assessment and produce an IPM plan and intended to encourage farmers to adopt a range of crop protection and risk reduction strategies.

How can we better join up biosecurity measures at the field level with plant health surveillance and detection frameworks at national and global levels – and will ELMs and risk registers help us? 

Rural residents have an important role to play in biosecurity. This ranges from helping to monitor pests and report issues, as well as taking action to control or stop their spread between sites. Back in May 2022 Defra, in partnership with 29 organisations, signed an Accord to improve public engagement in plant health and biodiversity. This included a joint campaign to encourage to not bring home plants, trees, fruits and seeds from overseas; and to ensure people know how to report sightings of pests and diseases. More widely, it has been suggested that volunteers could be deployed in environmental modelling, and the importance of members of the public in ‘passive surveillance’ highlighted (e.g. TreeAlert portal).  

What more can be done to collate insights from people living, working or visiting the countryside – and how can these link to the UKPHRR and PRAs?  

Where next? Back in 2006, the Government Office for Science published a Foresight report on infectious diseases. The foreword highlighted how ‘diseases in plants and animals act as barriers to economic development and also threaten ecosystems’ (page 5). It also indicated how plants would be at greater risk of vector-borne disease. More recently, in June 2023, the Government published the UK Biological Security Strategy. This cites how changing trade and consumer patterns, an increase in imports and climate change all increase the risk of an introduced plant pest outbreak occurring in the UK in the next 5-years, and that this risk will continue to increase over the next decade. The Plant Biosecurity Strategy contains commitments to update on progress after 3-years and to produce an evaluation at the end of the strategy period. While there will always be uncertainty about the future threats of infectious diseases, are we doing enough to prepare for those that will emerge – and are we taking rural communities into account? Watch this space.          …………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently evaluating hospital discharge and hospital avoidance schemes, and a service that supports older people to maintain their independence. Jessica also sits on the board of a charity supporting  rural communities across Cambridgeshire. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Will the new Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act combat farm vehicle crime?

Will the new Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act combat farm vehicle crime?

The Act has been being introduced to prevent the theft of machinery and equipment used by the agricultural sector, particularly quad bikes, and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). How will it help tackle equipment theft on farms, and what more can be done to support farmers struggling with both the fear of crime and being a victim of crime? Jessica Sellick investigates. ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The main users of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and quad bikes are people working in agriculture, horticulture, and land management. According to NFU Mutual’s Rural Crime Report 2023, the total cost of agricultural vehicle claims soared by 29% to £11.7 million in 2022 as organised criminal gangs cashed in on the rising cost and limited supply of vehicles and machinery. In 2022, quad bike and ATV theft reported to NFU Mutual totalled £3 million, a 34% rise on the previous year. The Government estimates that 900-1,200 quad bikes and ATVs are stolen in England and Wales each year. The Tradespeople Against Tool Theft white paper ‘On the Tools’, published in 2022, states that the average UK tradesperson is likely to have between £1,000 and £5,000 worth of tools stolen from them in just one tool theft incident. As a result, the theft of ATVs and tools is a key concern for farmers, tradespeople, and policy-makers.  

Under the Theft Act 1968 someone is guilt of theft if they ‘dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it’ (Section 1). Someone is guilty of handling stolen goods when they are ‘involved in trying to resell stolen tools or equipment’ (Section 22).  These offences can be tried in both magistrates courts and crown courts – with the maximum sentence for conviction of theft in a crown court being 7-years imprisonment, increasing to 14-years for handling stolen goods. 

The police, farming industry and other stakeholders have provided advice and delivered initiatives to seek to prevent the theft of ATVs and farm equipment and plant machinery. Some examples include:

  • CESAR Scheme (Construction and Agricultural Equipment Security and Registration Scheme) uses visible and covert markings on plant and agricultural machinery. The scheme’s database allows the owners of equipment to be identified so stolen equipment can be returned. The Agricultural Engineers Association (AEA) suggests the scheme has led to a 60% reduction in thefts since it was introduced back in 2008.  
  • uWatch-it app: this allows users to register their tools and report them as stolen. Details of reported stolen items then appear on ‘Dodgy Gear’, a free search engine where people can check if a second-hand item they want to buy is stolen. The app also alerts other local registered users when a tool has been reported stolen therefore advising them to be alert to suspicious activity. 
  • Tool Watch: an app that allows users to record ownership of tools and report thefts to police. Police officers can also use the app’s database to search and recover stolen equipment.  
  • Stolen Goods Working Group: as part of its Beating Crime Plan in 2021 the Government announced the establishment of the group in 2022. Comprising police and academics, the purpose of the group is to develop innovative ways to attack the markets for stolen goods, including finding ways of making property more identifiable and traceable. 
  • National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service: this was established by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC). It brings together vehicle crime specialists from across all police forces in England and Wales to consider how thefts of items from vehicles can be reduced. 
  • Rural and Wildlife Crime Strategy 2022-2025: produced by the NPCC, in consultation with stakeholders, it includes a UK National Rural Crime Priority on farm machinery, plant, and vehicle theft. The Strategy highlights how, post COVID-19 lockdowns, there was a notable increase nationally in the theft of ATVs and specialist farm Satnav systems.   
  • The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) set up the National Rural Crime Network (NRCN) back in 2014. The  NRCN champions a better understanding of crime in rural areas and finding new and effective ways to keep rural communities safer. 
  • The CLA has a Rural Crime hub, supporting landowners and rural business to play a part in protecting equipment to deter thieves.  
  • The NFU provides information and practical tips on how members can reduce their chances of becoming a victim of rural crime. 

Why is the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act needed? While stakeholders have published advice to help reduce the risk of having tools and equipment stolen, and to improve the record keeping of equipment ownership to help trace owners in cases of theft, there was no legal requirement for manufacturers to fit immobilisers or add forensic marking to machinery and equipment. 

The purpose of the bill is to prevent the theft of machinery and equipment used by the agricultural sector, in particular quad bikes and ATVs by: (i) passing regulations requiring immobilisers and forensic marking to be fitted as standard to all new ATVs that meet the definition set out in the bill; and (ii) powers to make regulations on recoding ATV sales and to other equipment designed or adapted primarily for use in agricultural or commercial settings.   

The bill was sponsored in the House of Commons by Greg Smith. It passed the Commons stages unamended and received cross-party support, including from the Government where the Home Office prepared the bill’s explanatory notes. 

The bill was sponsored in the House of Lords by Lord Blencathra. The bill received Royal Assent on 20 July 2023. Known as the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023, it makes five provisions to prevent the theft and re-sale of equipment and tools used by tradespeople and agricultural businesses.  

  • Subsection 1: requirements for sale of equipment – the Act covers mechanically propelled vehicles that (i) are designed or adapted primarily for use other than on a road; (ii) have an engine capacity of at least 250 cubic centimetres or two kilowatts; and (iii) travel on more than two wheels or on tracks. 
  • Subsection 2: record keeping – allows the secretary of state to make regulations requiring a person selling specified equipment to record certain information about the sale. This information may include: the name and contact details of the buyer; the make, model and/or colour of the equipment; details of its unique identifier; and the method or location of the marking. Provisions may also include when the information must be recorded, how long the information must be kept, and the form in which the information must be kept. 
  • Subsection 3: enforcement – a person commits an offence if they sell equipment in breach of subsection 1, and/or they fail to record or keep information in accordance with subsection 2. Enforcement powers can be exercised by an enforcement authority which means a local weights and measures authority, or a district council that is not a local weights and measures authority. 
  • Subsection 4: general regulations – information about how to make regulations under the provision of the Act. 
  • Subsection 5: extent and commencement – the Act covers England and Wales and comes into force at the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which the Act is passed [i.e., January 2024].  

What happens next?  Between 18 May and 13 July 2023 the Home Office ran a call for evidence targeted at those who might be affected by the legislation. This includes manufacturers, dealers, retailers, forensic marking companies, trade associations, tradespeople, and law enforcement practitioners. Assuming the bill would gain Royal Assent, the consultation sought views on proposed details to be included in secondary legislation. This will introduce regulations defining minimum standards for immobilisers, forensic  marking and the database for recording details. The call for evidence sought views on: 

  • The definition of ATVs and agricultural equipment. 
  • A requirement for removable Global Positioning Service (GPS) systems to be forensically marked. 
  • The Recommended Retail Price (RRP) threshold of tools to be marked. 
  • Specifications of immobiliser, and any implications for type approval. 
  • Specifications for forensic marking. 
  • Specifications for registration on databases. 

The consultation contained three proposals with a set of questions under each: 

  1. A requirement for agricultural machinery to be fitted with immobilisers, forensically marked, and registered on a database. A requirement for removable GPS trackers to be forensically marked and registered on a database. 
  2. A requirement to forensically mark hand-held power tools. 
  3. The specifications for immobilisers and forensic marking and the functionality of the databases.

In its response to the call for evidence, the NFU indicated its interest in more powers being provided to combat the surge in GPS systems as well as its support for a requirement for these units to be forensically marked to discourage resale and assist police investigations. The AEA and its members support the aims of the bill and did not oppose it during its passage however they are concerned that its proposers and supporters have significantly underestimated the legal complexity and cost of complying with the measures proposed. The AEA flagged a conflict for machine dealers and other sellers of vehicles for whom it would be illegal to sell affected vehicles without an immobiliser fitted however to do so would contravene product safety legislation. To overcome this the AEA propose manufacturers fit immobilisers to their vehicles and machinery – however this is complex, costly and time consuming and they propose an implementation period of 3-5 years. The AEA also indicated how forensic marking proposals relating to professional powered hand tools is impractical as they are manufactured in factories around the world and leave the production line already boxed. 

Similarly, and echoing both its support of the aims of the legislation and the points raised by the AEA, the British Agricultural and Garden Machinery Association (BAGMA) also raised concerns about the implementation of the bill including distortion of the UK market as the provisions only apply to England and Wales; and how the complexity and cost of complying with the proposed measures had been significantly underestimated. 

What might these new powers and regulations mean for people working in agriculture, horticulture, and land management? Researchers at Northumbria University have highlighted the impact of the theft of farm vehicles on farming families. The key findings include: 

  • Machinery theft often results in significant interruptions to farming as well as financial losses, and sometimes theft is accompanied by intimidation and violence. In one example an individual who had participated in a sting ATV scheme with their local police force was the victim of arson after the bait vehicle was stolen and the perpetrator arrested. Whilst no formal evidence existed linking the two events, the individual felt the two were connected. 
  • Farmers and their families can be left struggling with both the fear of crime and the experience of being a victim of crime leaving them feeling vulnerable and afraid of being alone in their own homes. Indeed, many of the farmers interviewed by researchers described how they felt the need to remain constantly vigilant and how this was both exhausting and psychologically impactful. 
  • While some thieves operate locally and are fairly unsophisticated, most rural thieves routinely move across counties, countries and sometimes continents. 
  • Farmers are increasingly uncertain how best to protect themselves without having to constantly invest in expensive security as a technological arms race takes place between them and criminals. 
  • Agricultural vehicle manufacturers must start to include modern security measures in their standard design for tractors and quad bikes as they do with cars, instead of leaving them to be purchased as expensive extras that farmers cannot afford. 

More broadly, researchers highlighted how criminals operate across and exploit the administrative boundaries of police forces. Researchers recommended that police forces establish dedicated rural policing resources, improve the speed at which they attend thefts to collect evidence, and create better mechanisms for police forces to share intelligence between areas in real time. For farmers, researchers recommended that they maintain their security procedures equitably throughout the farming calendar and participate in their local rural watch group. 

Back in September, the Countryside Alliance launched its largest-ever survey into crime in rural areas. 97% of the 2,016 people that responded to the 2022 survey said that rural crime was a ‘significant’ issue in their community; and 49% did not think the police were taking rural crime seriously. In addition to highlighting people’s feeling of safety, the purpose of the 2023 survey is to build a clear picture of the issue to shape future policing delivery and ensure funding is spent where it is most needed.  

If implemented, will fitting immobilisers, or adding forensic marking to machinery and equipment, lead to a reduction in the sharp rise in thefts; tackle the highly organised gangs of criminals trespassing and stealing valuable machinery; and lead to a more collaborative approach to tackling rural crime? And will this reduce the fear of crime and the impact of crime on rural communities? Watch this space. 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently evaluating hospital discharge and hospital avoidance schemes, and a service that supports older people to maintain their independence. Jessica also sits on the board of a charity supporting  rural communities across Cambridgeshire. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

How much capital investment is being made in new (rural) hospitals?

How much capital investment is being made in new (rural) hospitals?

The New Hospital Programme was set up in 2020 to build 40 new hospitals in England by 2030. The Government allocated £3.7 billion in capital funding for this up to March 2025, with more to be provided for the following five years. How has the Programme been implemented so far, and what does it mean for how health care is delivered in the future? Jessica Sellick investigates. ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The NHS in England has around 1,500 hospitals where most emergency and elective care is carried out. In accordance with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and the NHS Constitution, NHS providers are required to comply with legal requirements to ‘deliver care in a clean, secure and suitable environment that is properly maintained’. 

Back in September 2019, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) published a 5-year plan setting out a programme of investment in health infrastructure, including a new hospital building programme. Known as the Health Infrastructure Plan (HIP), it described how 6 new large hospital builds would be receiving funding to go ahead (aiming to deliver by 2025), 21 more schemes had been given the green light to go to the next stage of developing their plans (with the aim of being ready to deliver between 2025 and 2030), and how there would be opportunities for other schemes to bid for funding in the future. The HIP focused on 3 areas to make NHS infrastructure fit for the future: 

  1. A new 5-year rolling programme of investment in NHS infrastructure – including waves of investment in new infrastructure and multi-year capital settlements to provide greater certainty to plan effectively and get better value for money. 
  2. A reformed system underpinning capital to ensure funding addresses need – ensuring funding reaches the frontline when and where it is needed, with national infrastructure to support this. 
  3. Strengthening capital funding in wider health and care sectors which support the NHS. 

In July 2020, the Public Accounts Committee (PCA) published a report on NHS capital expenditure and financial management. This highlighted how some NHS trusts had been using their capital budgets to sustain day-to-day services, estimating that they had a backlog of maintenance costs of £6.5 billion to restore their estates to an appropriate standard, of which £1.1 billion was high-risk, indicating an increased risk of harm to patients. The Committee called on the DHSC and NHS England to identify a capital strategy to support the NHS Long Term Plan, including expectations on how backlog maintenance costs would be addressed. 

In line with the HIP, in October 2020 the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, confirmed funding to rebuild 40 hospitals, with a further 8 schemes invited to bid for future funding, leading to the expected delivery of 48 hospitals by 2030. 

“The dedication and tireless efforts of our nurses, doctors and all healthcare workers have kept the NHS open throughout this pandemic. But no matter what this virus throws at us, we are determined to build back better and deliver the biggest hospital building programme in a generation. From Morpeth to Milton Keynes, we are building 40 new hospitals across England to level up our NHS so more people have top-class healthcare services in their local area”, Boris Johnson, 2 October 2020. 

Alongside a £3.7 billion capital investment, the Prime Minister also announced the development of work to standardise the design of new hospitals including making use of modern construction methods to speed up builds. 

Figures from 2021-2022 highlighted how 43% of the NHS estate had been built before 1985, and that the maintenance backlog at the time had reached some £10.2 billion. Seven hospitals were also found to be structurally unsound and in need of urgent replacement because of the use of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC). Surveys also found a further 41 buildings at 23 hospital trusts to contain the material.     

In 2020 the DHSC set up a New Hospital Programme (NHP) to deliver the Government’s commitment to the NHS estate.  The NHP was tasked with contracting and improving efficiency, quality, and standardisation in hospital construction. The NHP intended to allocate the 48 schemes across 5 cohorts: 

  • Cohort 1 – 1 new hospital (Dyson Cancer Centre in Bath) and completion of 7 schemes under construction or pending full approval prior to the NHP. 
  • Cohort 2 – 10 schemes entering construction up to 2024-2025, of which 9 were new hospitals and 1 a pre-existing scheme.  
  • Cohort 3 – 8 schemes for most or entire construction from 2025-2026 onwards. 
  • Cohort 4 – 14 schemes for construction from 2025-2026 onwards. 
  • Cohort 5 – 8 further schemes not yet selected to be constructed in the late 2020s.  

What progress has been made by the NHP since 2020, how might the Programme operate to 2030, and what might this mean for rural communities?  

How has the NHP been implemented to date? In July 2023, the National Audit Office (NAO) published a report examining whether NHP was being managed in a way that is likely to achieve value for money. The report covered the need for new hospitals, the progress made by the NHP between 2020 and 2023, and the issues, risks and opportunities for the NHP going forward.  

  • Initial funding and selecting schemes for the NHP: the NAO found Government had only allocated capital funding up to 2024-2025 and had not made funding and scoping decisions about later cohorts because the DHSC had not yet developed a new centralised, standardised approach to build them. This has resulted in uncertainty for schemes in cohorts 3, 4 and 5. After the DHSC received less funding than it assessed it needed for the NHP’s first 4-years, the DHSC decided to start with smaller schemes first and leave most construction for the final 6-years. The NAO found this increased the risk that in later years many schemes would need to be under construction at once, meaning it could be harder to find construction companies willing or able to build them at a good price. The NAO found the DHSC was not able to fully document the process it had used for selecting the 32 schemes that were announced in October 2020. Officials told the NAO that the final selection of schemes involved choices and judgements for which no further documentation was available. The NAO found that the DHSC had adopted a board definition of ‘new hospital’ encompassing completely new hospitals, complete rebuilds of existing hospitals, major new buildings at existing sites and major refurbishments of existing hospital buildings. Excluding the 8 pre-existing schemes in the NHP, the NAO estimates that of the remaining 32 schemes 11 represented new hospitals and 20 others elements of the DHSC’s definition. 
  • Progress with cohorts 1 and 2: the NAO found in its first 3-years, the NHP had made slow progress constructing hospitals in cohorts 1 and 2. By June 2023, 3 of the 8 schemes in cohort 1 had part-opened against an expectation of 5. The other 5 schemes in cohort 1 had been delayed between 1 month and 16 months. As of May 2023, none of the 10 schemes in cohort 2 had entered construction, though some pre-construction site works valued at £11 million had commenced. The NHP attributed these delays to the approval of individual business cases. The NAO found forecast costs for schemes in cohorts 1 and 2 had increased by 41% between 2020 and 2023. The causes of the cost increases have been ascribed to higher-than-expected inflation and an under-estimation of costs by some NHS Trusts. Where these costs fall in the period up to 2024-2025 they must be meet from the NHP’s existing £3.7 billion capital funding. 
  • Progress with cohorts 3, 4 and 5: the NHP has been planning for schemes in later cohorts to use standardised hospital design and modern methods of construction to reduce costs and timescales and to improve the quality of new hospitals. Estimates suggest this will lead hospital construction to be 25% cheaper and 20% quicker compared to traditional approaches. The NHP’s central team has been working on a standardised design, known as ‘Hospital 2.0’, since 2021 and has assessed that it will take until May 2024 to complete this task. Until Hospital 2.0 is complete there are limits to the NHP’s ability to progress with planning schemes in cohort 3 and later. The NAO’s review of the minimum viable product (MVP) of Hospital 2.0 suggests it may result in smaller hospitals with lower initial building costs and lower running costs than other potential specifications. This may result in hospitals that are not big enough for future needs. The NAO also flagged bed occupancy data in suggesting that running hospitals very full in the future would reduce the amount of spare capacity for coping with normal variations in demand, unexpected shocks, and health crises. The NHP had only identified 4 contractors able to consider building a complex, large, new hospital leading to further concerns about their demands and capacity to deliver the Hospital 2.0 pipeline. 
  • The NHP team’s capacity and skills: the NAO found the NHP had experienced difficulties staffing its team and had depended more than it had wanted to on consultancy services. By February 2023 the NHP team had filled 361 posts but the remaining 165 posts were still vacant. Of the 361 posts that had been filled, 30% were with permanent employees and 62% through consultancy services. Between April 2021 and March 2023, the NHP used £70 million of its £89 million resource expenditure on consultancy services. The NHP is estimating £842 million of consultancy spend between 2023-2024 and 2030-2031. The NAO highlighted the risk of a lack of continuity and loss of knowledge on a long-term programme. 
  • Agreeing funding for the NHP: during 2022 it was not possible to set an indicative budget for later years because of issues with the scope of the programme, delivery capacity and the programme plan. In March 2023 HM Treasury agreed a funding envelope, indicating that spend on new hospitals between 2025-2026 and 2030-2031 would be £18.5 billion.  

The Government’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) has been monitoring NHP delivery. Over the last 3-years it has categorised this delivery between amber (where successful delivery appears feasible but significant issues exist) through to red (where successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable). The NAO has indicated that 2023-2024 is a critical period ‘during which the NHP needs to consolidate its scope, timetable, funding and approach to construction’ (page 16).    

In July 2022, NHS Providers published the findings of a survey it had carried out into trusts’ experiences and progress to date with the NHP. Representatives from 26 out of the 35 Trusts engaged in the NHP responded. On funding: 96% of respondents ‘strongly agreed’ and 19% ‘agreed’ that the Government should confirm the funding envelope beyond 2024-2025. Half of all the trusts that responded were ‘not confident’ or ‘not at all confident’ that their funding allocation would be sufficient to deliver their project. On delays: completion dates were behind schedule for 39% of schemes in the trusts surveyed – and all reported that costs would increase because of the delay. 62% of respondents said the delays somewhat affected their ability to deliver safe and effective patient care. 

In November 2022, the NHS Confederation cited 4 reasons why NHS capital investment had fallen behind the times. Firstly, successive Governments have failed to invest enough in capital. Secondly, the impact of inflation, which has hit the construction industry particularly hard. Thirdly, a reduction in the amount of capital investment per worker by 17% between 2010-2011 and 2017-2018. Fourthly, accessing capital remains difficult, and the business case sign-off process is opaque. In a survey of its members in June 2022, 9 out of 10 respondents said their efforts to reduce the size of their waiting lists was being hindered by a lack of investment in buildings and estate. More recently, in its response to the NAO’s report, Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS Confederation described how “members will be concerned by the delays to many part of the New Hospitals Programme…especially as some trusts are having to find additional money to tackle ongoing maintenance issues such as new roofs, when they were led to believe they would be moving to a new site or given funds to build something new…a comprehensive and long-term capital investment plan is needed, and work needs to start ahead of what is likely to be another tough winter for the NHS”.    

How will the NHP be delivered to 2030? On 25 May 2023, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced a reset of the NHP. The reset includes: 

  • Rebuilding all 7 RAAC hospitals by 2030, 5 more than the DHSC included in the original programme back in 2020. Building works on the first hospital site are planned from 2025. 
  • The completion of 8 cohort four schemes will be delayed until the 2030s when they will form part of a new 5-year rolling programme of planned hospital upgrades. 
  • Plans for 8 new hospitals to come forward and form cohort 5 have been replaced by the 5 additional RAAC hospitals.
  • HM Treasury has indicated that capital funding between 2025-2026 and 2030-2031 will be up to £18.5 billion (subject to future spending reviews). 
  • Government has given approval to the NHP to build all of the hospitals from cohort 3 onwards. This is less than the NHP requested in its business case and it will be developing a further business case to find more savings. 

In addition, three mental health schemes in Surrey and Borders NHS Foundation Trust, Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, and Mersey Care Foundation Trust will be delivered. While these hospitals are not part of the NHP, they do meet the DHSC’s definition of a new hospital and part of a commitment to eradicate dormitory accommodation from mental health facilities across the country and put mental health on equal footing to physical health.  

In the longer term, the DHSC says it recognises the need for continuous investment in healthcare infrastructure. It intends for the NHP to become part of a rolling programme of investment in new health capital infrastructure to deliver new hospitals up to 2030 and beyond. 

Following the NAO’s report, the Public Accounts Commitment launched an inquiry to examine national programme management, support for and challenges to local projects within the NHP, progress compared with expectations, and the management of programme-level risks.  The Committee accepted written evidence up to 25 August and held an oral evidence session on 7 September.  While recognising the need to prioritise the eradication of RAAC from the NHS estate, in the evidence it submitted, NHS Providers flagged that each of the 100 trusts who had applied for the final 8 places on the NHP are still in need of vital capital investment. NHS Providers also highlighted a lack of parity in funding in overlooking the capital needs of mental health, ambulance, and community trusts.  In its evidence the NHS Confederation argued that the NHP should not be considered in isolation, but part of a wider dialogue on infrastructure and digital. They highlighted the knock-on effect of underinvestment in capital on workforce productivity, staff vacancies and patients on waiting lists for treatment. They argue there has been a tendency to provide short-term funding stipulated for specific projects which does not reflect the wider reality of the challenges the NHS is currently facing and that a systems wide approach is needed.  

What does the NHP mean for rural areas? The evidence suggests that up-to-date facilities and equipment can lead to improvements in the recruitment and retention of health care staff, patient safety, and the development of existing and new services. 

On an annual basis all NHS Trusts, including Ambulance Trusts, submit an estates return to NHS Digital [known as ERIC]. This contains information relating to the costs of providing and maintaining the NHS estate, including buildings, maintaining and equipping hospitals, the provision of services (e.g. laundry, food), and utilities. This shows, for the period 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022: 

  • The total costs of running the NHS estate were £11.1 billion – this is an 8% increase since 2020-2021. 
  • The total cost to eradicate backlog maintenance was £10.2 billion – this is an increase of 11% since 2020-2021. 

While the data reports for ERIC provide a breakdown per Trust of capital investment for new build, capital investment for changing/improving existing buildings and capital investment for maintaining existing buildings, this information is not collated to show rural level data within or across Trusts. However, the site level data for each Trust does contain postcode data so it may be possible, for existing sites, to see if/how the quality of the buildings, age profile and safety varies in rural areas. 

Back in 2019, the National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC) commissioned the Nuffield Trust to explore the impact of rurality and sparsity on the costs of delivering health care. The review looked at the key factors for calculating health allocations to local areas: with adjustments in funding made for population need, unmet need/inequalities, costs and financial stability. The key determinant here is population and demographic needs within a given area. A further adjustment is made for the higher costs of running hospitals with 24-hour A&E departments in remote areas. Funding from what was then Clinical Commissioning Groups to rural areas made adjustments for (i) the extra cost of ambulance provision and (ii) an allowance for remoteness. However, these two factors are outweighed by a further two factors (iii) market forces and (iv) health inequalities. The impact of iii and iv sees the total budget for core services move around £600 million of funding from predominantly rural areas to urban and less rural areas. 

Nuffield’s analysis revealed how six rural hospital trusts were carrying a quarter of England’s health service’s funding deficit. Furthermore, data provided to the Nuffield Trust by then NHS Improvement suggested that, to November 2018, 17 trusts had applied for local modifications. Of these applications, the majority (11 applications) were for rurality (or sparsity/economies of scale); with the remainder consisting of rationale relating to case-mix complications (2), Private Finance Initiatives or estates (2), A&E services (2), and clinical negligence scheme costs (1). Only one trust, Morecambe Bay, had been successful in its request for formal compensation for higher costs due to rurality. This analysis suggests that the way the NHS allocates and distributes funding does not fully compensate remote and rural areas for the extra costs they face.  

The NHS Long Term Plan commits to developing a ‘standard model of delivery in smaller acute hospitals who serve rural populations. Smaller hospitals have significant challenges around a number of areas’ (page 23). The Government publishes a map and a list of projects where hospital builds, hospital upgrades and investments in equipment and technology are being made. Similarly, a map of the location of the NHP by cohorts was produced (page 27). While the displays show national and regional distribution, to what extent each of these new investments is taking place in a rural area and/or to what extent rural patients will benefit is not shown. It is also unclear to what extent the NHP has been rural proofed.   

The Parliamentary Inquiry into Rural Health and Care identified five distinctive health and care needs in rural communities based on the evidence given by witnesses: 

  1. Ageing population: rural areas have a disproportionate number of older people leading to higher levels of demand. 
  2. Mental health: isolation and loneliness can heighten mental health issues in rural areas and there is limited data available on rural mental health. 
  3. Distance from services: people in rural areas need to travel further to access treatment and often have less access to specialist provision and to emergency services. 
  4. Housing: the cost of housing, prevalence of older properties, fuel poverty and older populations living alone can increase the vulnerability of poor health and chronic illness. 
  5. Cultural and attitudinal differences: rural patients often seek medical help later; and rural poverty and deprivation is linked to a lack of confidence and aspiration. 

The Inquiry highlighted examples of how investment in smaller rural buildings is not as attractive to funders who prefer larger scale urban estates. 

In a short debate on Healthcare in Rural Areas in the House of Lords on 23 February 2023, Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle highlighted how “We see repeated attacks on the whole concept of community hospitals, and we have seen cutbacks and further cutbacks, but there needs to be a vision for such hospitals—that is, a strategy of how they can best be used for local people and the local healthcare system, taking medium acuity patients to relieve some of the enormous pressures that the acute hospitals are experiencing and, of course, making sure that people can visit patients and that patients can remain in and be part of their communities”.

We do not know enough about the current and future health care needs of rural communities – and the people, physical and digital infrastructure required to meet these needs.  

The NHS is one of the largest landowners in England. While the main function of the NHS is to provide health services, NHS bodies are also anchor institutions, in that they play an active role in supporting local communities and other organisations to address the physical, social and environmental factors that can cause ill health. According to NHS providers, this role is more pertinent in a rural community where there are few other public service institutions and key employers playing a similar role. NHS England has developed guidance for estates and facilities managers on the 10 Building Blocks for Building for Health – this document also references the role of the NHS in facilitating economic development and regeneration in rural areas.  At the same time, the NHP’s work suggests there will be ‘model of care shift’ where patient care will increasingly shift out of hospitals and into adult social care, outpatient services, community care and digital healthcare. Within and outside of the NHP, is there a strategy and funding to support the delivery of this shift – and the increased costs of providing these services in rural areas?  

10% of the NHS estate is owned by NHS Property Services. Alongside the formation of Integrated Care Systems (ICS) they have been developing community spaces for social prescribing programmes. A report from The Health Creation Alliance for NHS Property Services back in October 2022 aimed to get a better understanding of what matters to ten different communities, both in terms of the kinds of spaces that support wellbeing and the processes involved in making them available. The report included a case study of people from rural communities. This identified 7 themes that matter to rural residents in overcoming physical, social and economic isolation:  

  1. Transport is frustrating. 
  2. Physical meetings are preferable to digital ones. 
  3. Become problem solvers. 
  4. Create an environment of comfort and warmth. 
  5. Be opening and welcoming. 
  6. Harness the whole community for longevity. 
  7. Work with partners to develop a sense of shared ownership. 

By connecting and using the community, community organisations and partners as resources, the authors of the report suggests some of these barriers can be overcome and opportunities harnessed. 

Where next?The NHP was launched at time when the hospital estate had experienced a period of underinvestment and had a maintenance backlog. Over the last 3-years the NHP has struggled with funding, staffing, and developing a standard approach to construction.Following the recent reset of the NHP, the NAO estimates that the DHSC’s plan will lead to 32 hospitals by 2030 according to the definition it used in 2020; with another 8 hospitals following after 2030. Some schemes publicly announced back in 2020 may now face delays, inevitably having implications for NHS staff and patients. However, the Government believes it is on track to deliver its commitment to build 40 new hospitals in England by 2030. While it is admirable to want to build new hospitals, a much broader discussion is needed about capital investment in the NHS, adult social care and community estates. For while big can be beautiful, we owe it to our rural communities to develop health and care provision that matches their needs both now and in the future.  

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently evaluating hospital discharge and hospital avoidance schemes, and a service that supports older people to maintain their independence. Jessica also sits on the board of a charity supporting  rural communities across Cambridgeshire. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Do we need a new framework for managing land?

Do we need a new framework for managing land?

While land is one of our greatest assets, it is a finite resource. A number of commentators have suggested a land use framework would help tackle increasing pressures on land. It is also seen as a way of giving local communities and landowners greater security in making long-term decisions about land. But there are also concerns that a land use framework would have unintended consequences, such as placing limitations on land use. With Defra due to publish a Land Use Framework in 2023; how can we make better use of land, and what does a good land use framework look like? Jessica Sellick investigates. ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Back in 2010 the Government Office for Science published a report on ‘Land Use Futures: Making the most of land in the 21st century’. This followed a 2-year Foresight project on the future of land use in the UK. This independent study looked at how land is used and managed, the benefits it delivers, and the impact of change. If a land system is to deliver best value for the country in a sustainable way, the project team suggested that we need to estimate the value of land in alternative possible users (including for future generations). With conflicting needs of individual households, communities, regions and the country as a whole, they argued it is important to ensure that economic and regulatory mechanisms are in place to deliver best value. The authors identified an important issue around whether a central body would be necessary to oversee all aspects of land use policy and implementation, or whether a decentralised approach would be sufficient.  

[This project] demonstrates that there is a strong case to develop a much more strategic approach: to guide incremental land use change, incentivise sustainable behaviours, and to unlock value from land…a reappraisal is vital to help address major challenges ahead – for example, relating to demographic shifts, climate change, and rising demand for commercial and residential development…The challenge…is to deliver a wider range of sustainable benefits from land. In particular, a more coherent and consistent approach is needed for managing growing demands on land – at different levels of Government, and across the wider community of stakeholders involved in the many land use sectors (page 9)…The essential requirement is that sufficient oversight should be established so that greater coherence and consistency is achieved’ (page 35).  

More recently, in 2019, a report published by the House of Lords Rural Economy Committee called on the Government to develop a ‘spatial plan’ for land use in England, describing how this would “help ensure that the right type of development is brought forward in the right places, enabling sustainable and growing rural economies and communities. Government must carefully consider how such a plan may be developed at a local and regional level, focusing on how groups of local authorities may be encouraged or required to work together to develop and implement the plans” (page 171).   

In 2021, the National Food Strategy proposed a rural land use framework. This called on Defra to work with Local Nature Recovery Networks to prepare a National Rural Land Map. Such a map would show the productivity of agricultural land, priority areas for the environment, and areas where there are significant levels of pollution. It would also display information from the England Tree Strategy, England Peat Action Plan and Local Nature Recovery Strategies. 

In June 2022 Defra published the Government’s food strategy. This contained a commitment to ‘publish a land use framework in 2023 to ensure we meet our net zero and biodiversity targets, and help our farmers adapt to a changing climate, whilst continuing to produce high quality, affordable produce that supports a healthier diet’. 

In December 2022, the House of Lords Land Use Committee published its report ‘Making the most out of England’s land’. The Committee highlighted a number of issues standing in the way of making the best decisions on land use: from siloed working and conflicting priorities, through to policy uncertainty and lack of coordination between different tiers of Government. The Committee recommended that a Land Use Commission be created and be tasked with producing a land use framework – which should consider several factors including food, nature, housing needs and net zero. The Committee’s Chair described how “Throughout this inquiry we repeatedly heard evidence that showcased the need for guidance and clarity in the form of an overarching framework to assist farmers, landowners and land managers to make the most effective use of their land”. The Government responded to the Committee’s report in April 2023. It said it “disagree[d] with the proposal for a separate Land Use Commission. However, we agree that the framework must take a wide range of land uses into account and that it may be necessary to assemble a group of experts to oversee the application of the Land Use Framework once published. We agree that a land use framework should reflect existing planning frameworks and guidance, and that regional and local priorities must be taken into account when making any recommendations on national priorities. We are clear though that we do not intend to prescribe either land sharing or sparing, nor to determine at a national level where individual activities or uses should or should not be occurring. Our focus is on supporting the delivery of resilient, multifunctional landscapes which will be dependent on the local context and needs”.  

In May 2023 the Geospatial Commission published a report recommending the establishment of a new Land Use Analysis Taskforce. This would bring together ‘cutting edge data’ and ‘scientific expertise’ to support land use decision-making. 

In June 2023, Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle submitted a written question to Defra asking ‘whether the forthcoming national land use framework will balance the competing demands for agriculture, development, energy, and infrastructure in a way that actively promotes the installation of solar panels on suitable brownfield land and rooftops’? In his response, Lord Benyon described how “Striking the right balance between different land uses is a challenging task, which will involve trade-offs. There are many uses of our land that we need to anticipate for the future: growing food, planting trees, building homes, natural habitats, energy, land for infrastructure, and leisure and recreation. The Land Use Framework for England, to be published this year, will help to inform how we manage trade-offs and maximise co-benefits on the land, thereby supporting the delivery of multifunctional landscapes that will be dependent on the local context and national needs”.   

What is a Land Use Framework, do we need one in England, and what does a good framework look like? 

What is a Land Use Framework? According to the Food, Farming & Countryside Commission (FFCC) it is ‘an approach to managing land use decisions that mediates competing pressures and encourages multifunctionality, enabling land to provide multiple benefits for public value. It consists of  a set of agreed principles and practices for local and national organisations, businesses and communities, guiding transparent, inclusive, evidence-led decision-making’. 

In academic circles, it is framed around understanding the inputs, system-level impacts, and trade-offs between different land uses. Approaches to do this have focused on understanding land intensity, Land Use Functions (LUF), and/or Land Use Transition (LUT). Similarly, there have been calls to address the issues associated with changing land uses in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary ways.

In policy circles, a land use framework sets out principals and responsibilities that take account of relevant legislation and/or professional standards. This often involves a mix of stakeholders (individuals and organisations), has a spatial and/or organisational context, and sets out what is (or should be) happening or expected to happen. 

England already has a number of land use governance and frameworks in place. Some examples include: 

  • National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): this sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and provides a framework within which locally prepared plans for housing and other development can be produced, as well as setting guidelines for conserving and enhancing landscapes such as National Parks.
  • National Policy Statements: these set out the Government’s objectives for the development of nationally significant infrastructure projects.
  • Local Plans: Developed by local planning authorities, these set out the vision, growth strategy and strategic policies for a local area.
  • Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS): an emerging system of spatial strategies that will establish priorities and map proposals for specific actions to drive nature’s recovery and provide wider environmental benefits.
  • Environmental Land Management scheme (ELMs): agricultural policy reforms designed for England’s countryside and environment. 

In February 2023 the Royal Society published a report analysing the Government’s policies and targets relating to land use. It found, if existing land-based policy commitments were added together, the UK’s land risks being ‘overpromised’. By 2030, up to 1.4 Mha of additional land [equivalent to the size of Northern Ireland] could be needed to meet current policy targets for net zero and biodiversity, if current agricultural production, diets, and food waste remain static. This rises to 4.4 Mha by 2050: over twice the land area of Wales and 18% of total UK land area. The report contains figures to highlight the increasing pressure on the UK’s land over time and emphasises the importance of a multifunctional framework to maximise synergies and minimise  trade-offs; and of ‘joining up policy development across all departments of government within a land use framework informed by a comprehensive and continually improving evidence base’.  

Does England need a Land Use Framework? Land is fundamental for how we live our lives and recognising land use pressures is increasingly seen as a cross-cutting national challenge. Other UK nations have a range of land use policies and mechanisms in place. The Scottish Government, for example, published its land use strategy in March 2021 – setting out a long-term vision for sustainable land use, its objectives and key policies for delivery. In Scotland, a land use strategy must be produced every five years, with the first such strategy published in 2011. The strategy references Scotland’s National Planning Framework (NPF), which it sees as a platform to take forward conversations about sustainable land use.

In February 2021, the Welsh Government published its National Plan for Wales. The Welsh Government described the document as a ‘development plan’ with a strategy for addressing key national priorities through the planning system, including sustaining and developing a vibrant economy, achieving decarbonisation and climate-resilience, developing strong ecosystems and improving the health and well-being of our communities’. It sets out the Welsh Government’s land use priorities and provides a national land use framework for strategic development plans (SDPs) and local development plans (LDPs). 

In Northern Ireland, the Department for Infrastructure is responsible for the review, monitoring and implementation of the Regional Development Strategy (RDS). The RDS is viewed as a long-term plan for delivering the spatial aspects of the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Programme for Government. This includes addressing the economic, social and environmental issues aimed at achieving sustainable development and social cohesion. It therefore offers a framework which provides the strategic context for where development should happen. 

Increasingly, the UK Government is taking a systems-thinking approach to developing land use policy – with examples including tools that identify and track risks across the net zero portfolio.  The forthcoming Land Use Framework for England is intended ‘to ensure food security is balanced alongside climate and environment outcomes’. 

In its response to the Government’s Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP), the NFU confirmed it shares the Government’s environmental ambitions alongside equally ambitious plans for food production to protect and enhance the UK’s food security. The NFU is calling on the Land Use Framework to recognise the need for the countryside to remain a functional, dynamic space – indicating how greater access to data on land capability will be needed to inform business decisions and maximise land use efficiency.   

Some commentators argue that a Land Use Framework is not needed, or that it may lead to unintended consequences in England. In December 2022, for example, the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) highlighted how ‘if it [the Framework] were to go as far as identifying land parcels it could result in zoning and limitations on land use that could stifle both farming and environmental innovation. It could also be used to prevent rural development and business diversification. Instead, the development of Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRSs) will bring data together in a consistent and transparent way’. Combined with meaningful engagement with land holders and local communities, the CLA views LNRSs as a more effective route to bring data together, achieve local buy-in and motivation to deliver than a land use framework.   

What does a good Framework look like? Green Alliance has suggested that given over 70% of the UK’s land surface is farmed, while an ideal framework would cover all conceivable land uses, it should focus on the largest changes first in noting that 2.5% of rural land needs to be converted to native habitat or agroecologically managed farmland to achieve UK nature and climate goals at the least cost. According to Green Alliance the framework and related policy should do five things: 

  1. Map food production in England, showing where farmland is more or less productive. 
  2. Map the potential for land in England to store carbon and support nature through habitat creation and agroecology. Comparing this with the food production map (1) to explore changes and trade-offs. 
  3. Set out the  scale of land use change needed between now and 2050, and the land best suited to delivering environmental goals. 
  4. Explore different pathways for delivering this and the costs of doing so. 
  5. Outline how the target agreed at the COP15 UN biodiversity conference to protect 30% of land for nature by 2030 will be met. 

According to the Foresight project on making the most of land, the essential components of a framework should include: 

  • Establishing and cascading UK-wide land use objectives and priorities – aspirational or mandatory. 
  • Ensuring clarity on decision making at national, regional and local levels. 
  • Ensuring decision making is integrated and evidence-based. 
  • Facilitating the collection and dissemination of better date and information. 
  • Ensuring appropriate incentives to guide decisions on land use. 
  • Promoting decisions and policies that are robust in the face of changing circumstances and future uncertainty. 
  • Promoting opportunities for multifunctional land uses and collaboration amongst potential beneficiaries. 
  • Periodic review of outcomes against national and local objectives. 
  • Evaluating the robustness of new policies and interventions against  future uncertainties. 

The Royal Society has been exploring how science can be used to better manage land. In February 2023, the Society published its long-term vision for managing the UK’s land. This includes work around multifunctional landscape analysis – metrics that can be used to assess all the different products and services provided by the land, and that take into account the context within which a service is being measured. This is part of attempts to analyse the trade-offs and synergies between different land uses. The report also includes a recommendation that UK countries should develop and coordinate spatially explicit national land use frameworks to ensure coherence between national and local scales.  

Views vary about the scale or boundary of a land use framework, how it could be used to inform decision making, and how such an approach would be governed, delivered, funded and monitored.  

What does it mean for rural areas? FFCC has worked with Devon and Cambridgeshire to see how different components of a land use framework could be implemented at a county level. In Devon, the approach has been ‘data up’, with in-depth analysis of sub areas and catchments. In Cambridgeshire, the approach has been ‘whole county’, with a layered map approach trialled. In March 2023, FFCC published some initial lessons from the pilots, covering five key areas. 

  1. Scope and scale: a land use framework can be a helpful way of empowering and enabling local leadership to address issues across silos and deliver positive change. 
  2. Leadership: counties and/or Combined Authorities seem to be the right level to integrate national and local considerations. 
  3. Data: a lot of data exists already and the emphasis should be on using this to inform decision making – the process of bringing together data is valuable in considering strategic land use issues. 
  4. Communities: the mechanisms that currently exist for communities to influence land use change largely involve blocking or slowing development. There is an opportunity to bring citizens together to generate a positive vision for their area that goes beyond just the built environment. 
  5. Landowners: their ability to take a long-term view of the issues beyond political cycles is useful.   

FFCC aims to take the learning from the pilots to inform the development of a Land Use Framework for England. In the meantime, Devon County Council has committed to developing a land use framework to inform their food and carbon strategies. In Cambridgeshire, a prototype data decision-support tool is being developed. Pilots have also been taking place in Newcastle and Northern Ireland. Findings from all of the pilots will be shared from autumn 2023. 

Where next? In the words of Mark Twain, ‘buy land, they’re not making it anymore’.Our relationship to land is pivotal, connecting us to nature, culture; it shapes who we are and who we might become. Yet land is a finite resource and much is at stake for rural communities: how are we going to grapple with deciding what land provides now, and in the future; and will Defra’s Land Use Framework for England help us? Watch this space.   …………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently evaluating hospital discharge and hospital avoidance schemes, and a service that supports older people to maintain their independence. Jessica also sits on the board of a charity supporting  rural communities across Cambridgeshire. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Rotary Phone

What does the transition from analogue to digital landlines mean for rural communities?

Over the next few years, landline telephone services in the UK will switch to a fully digital network. This means phone calls will be carried over the internet rather than through the existing analogue telephone system. Telecom companies plan to do this by 2025. What is being done to ensure rural areas are ready for the switch? Jessica Sellick investigates. ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

It was back in 1913 when the first long distance telephone cable was laid in Europe between Leeds and Hull. This was followed by the speaking clock in 1936 and the iconic red phone boxes (Kiosk No 6) from 1936. Following a Government inquiry after the death of five women in a house fire in 1935 the 999 emergency services number was launched. From there, in 1958, the first long distance call was made without the help of an operator (by Queen Elizabeth II via Bristol telephone exchange to the Lord Provost of Edinburgh). The last exchange closed on the Isle of Skye in 1976 which made the system fully automatic. 

In 1980 the second national digital telephone exchange was installed in Baynard House, London (known as System X), with British Telecommunications (BT) formed in 1981. In 1985 an Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) was launched enabling people to transmit voice, video, data and other services digitally through the existing phone network. This was followed, in 1986, by System Y,  an AXE10 digital switch to provide competition for System X which was developed by a consortium of Plessey, General Electric Company, STC and BT’s state-owned predecessor, the GPO. In 1992 the first dial-up internet was provided – and in 2000 the first UK home broadband service was launched. 

Since 2008 the transition from copper to fibre has been happening – and a housing development in Ebbsfleet was the first place in the UK to receive telephony and broadband services through optical fibre cables. In 2013, the Oxfordshire village of Deddington was chosen as a pilot location for the first fibre-only exchange. 

What is the digital switchover and why can’t we continue to use the analogue network? The Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) uses copper cables to carry landline voice calls between users. According to Ofcom, the PSTN has been in place for many decades and over the last 10-15 years telecoms companies have built modern internet protocol (IP) based networks which can support both broadband and landline telephone services. While some providers have maintained two separate networks – the PSTN for calls services and an IP network for broadband – other providers have replaced the PSTN and now carry phone calls over broadband. According to the telecoms industry, PSTN is reaching the end of its life and is becoming increasingly difficult and costly to maintain. It was back in November 2017 that the telecoms industry first announced its intention to retire the PSTN by the end of 2025. In 2021 BT began a major rollout of a digital service to replace old analogue technology. BT has described the digital switch on and analogue switch off as ‘a once in a generation upgrade to ensure that everyone stays connected now and into the future’.  

In practice the switch over means instead of plugging a home phone into a wall mounted socket, customers will connect their handset to their broadband router. For most consumers, the switch over is expected to be straightforward, with the exact migration process dependent on their communications provider and the equipment they use. If, however, customers do not have or want broadband, the Telephony Universal Service Obligation in the 2003 Communications Act means all consumers in the UK will still have access to a landline service should they wish to do so. 

How is the switchover from analogue to digital being rolled out? Back in 2019, Ofcom published guidance on the support that should be provided when migrating customers to digital services. This includes: giving adequate notice of service changes and offering to assist with the migration process if/where necessary (e.g., making a home visit to install a router). This was supplemented, in 2020, by guidance on treating vulnerable customers fairly. If a customer has other devices connected to their landline, such as an alarm system or telecare device, they may need to take steps to ensure they continue to function correctly following migration.    

The migration programme is provider-led and underway. For some customers the switch has already happened (e.g. when they entered into a new broadband and home phone contract). New build developments are being constructed with fibre-optic cables for both internet and phone connectivity. From September 2023, no new analogue phone lines will be sold to new customers.  

Analysis by Ofcom shows in August 2022 around 27% of landline services were being delivered over broadband, up from 15% on the previous year. In the year to August 2022 approximately 1.6 million customers migrated to a Voice over Broadband (VoBB) service.  

Openreach has been trialling measures to prompt customers still using analogue phone lines to contact their provider to upgrade to digital alternatives. The trials have been taking place in Salisbury (Wiltshire) since December 2020 and Mildenhall (Suffolk) since May 2021. In both areas restrictions include the prevention of outbound telephone calls (with the exception of calls to the emergency services) and limits to broadband speeds (to around 2Mbps). Vulnerable customers are exempt from the trials. In both areas the PSTN will be switched off by October 2023 and Openreach believe that adjusting the performance of remaining analogue services will prompt customers to upgrade their lines before then. James Lilley, Director for Managed Customer Migrations at Openreach said: “Our trials in Salisbury and Mildenhall have been a great testing ground to identify and iron out issues, and we’ve already managed to upgrade the vast majority of customers in those areas successfully. Having said that, a small minority of customers are yet to upgrade despite several attempts by their service provider to contact them, so we’re planning some gentle measures which will nudge them to contact their provider and have a conversation about their future service.”  

In September 2022 Ofcom published research to understand how customers had experienced the trial. The study found, with the exception of a minority of participants, awareness of plans for PSTN closure / copper retirement were low or superficial. Many participants flagged possible issues regarding Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) not working during power cuts. While participants were satisfied with communications sent from providers, some participants reflected that they had made a decision to migrate to a VoIP service without being given sufficient information to make an informed choice. 

Digital Voice is BT’s home phone service powered by a broadband connection. According to Ofcom, managed migrations by BT and Virgin Media accounted for just over half of total customers who moved to digital services in the year to August 2022. 

What does it mean for customers in rural areas? Back in March 2022 BT announced that it was pausing its migration programme while it sought to address concerns raised by customers. BT described how they had underestimated the disruptive impact the upgrade would have on customers, particularly those who rely more heavily on landlines. BT also acknowledged that it wanted to do more work on getting back-up solutions in place for when things disrupt the service such as power cuts or storms. 

Storms Arwen and Eunice, for example, highlighted how some customers – particularly in rural areas – with broadband only phone connections struggled to make calls. Ofcom mapped the most prolonged and consistent power outages during Storm Arwen by postcode, revealing how the storm had a severe impact on communication services in rural areas of Northern England and Eastern Scotland. In May 2022, the Electronic Communications Resilience and Response Group (EC-RRG) published a post incident review that outlined learnings and contained an action plan to improve the sector’s response to future storms.  

BT is currently looking at the use of hybrid phones that can switch to a mobile network and have an in-built, long-lasting battery; providing in-home mobile landlines for people without broadband; continued investment in the Shared Rural Network (SRN) to address mobile ‘not spots’; and has launched a campaign so customers better understand the need to switch. 

Data analysis by Ofcom shows that while there has been an increase in gigabit-capable coverage in both urban and rural areas, there has been a greater increase in urban areas. This is because some providers tend to focus their roll-out on urban areas. Similarly, while the majority of homes and businesses have access to at least decent broadband on a fixed line connection, around half a million premises, mainly in rural areas, do not. Ofcom is seeing small improvements in 4G coverage, partly as a result of initiatives such as the Shared Rural Network. 

BT’s digital voice rollout resumed in April 2023, starting in the East Midlands. BT has said that it will not migrate anyone who falls into one of the following categories until it has worked with stakeholders to identify the support they need: customers who use a telecare device, customers who are over 70 years of age, landline only customers, customers with no mobile signal, and customers who have disclosed additional needs.

In July 2023 the Communications Consumer Panel (CCP) published ‘the struggle for fairness’, research documenting the experiences of people living in rural and remote areas across the UK using communication services. Researchers found communication services for rural dwellers were, at best, functional for the majority, and at worst very poor. The infrastructure was not in place to enable residents and businesses to manage effectively in a digital society. The research found the landline remains an important communication service for a few households, mainly those who are on broadband for calls and keep their analogue landline as an emergency backup. Amongst these, there remains some concern about the impending copper switch over in 2025.    

Where next?Communication coverage levels remain lower in rural areas compared to urban areas. While the decision to migrate from analogue to digital has been led by the telecoms industry, there is a need to ensure that critical communications infrastructure continues to work for rural residents, before, during and after migration. Ofcom is exploring areas for further research into customers’ experiences of the migration to VoIP services. What does next generation digital calling mean for all rural residents? Watch this space. 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently evaluating hospital discharge and hospital avoidance schemes, and a service that supports older people to maintain their independence. Jessica also sits on the board of a Housing Association that supports older people and a charity supporting Cambridgeshire’s rural communities. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

In the borderlands of transatlantic security – where next?

In the borderlands of transatlantic security – where next?

Security in our daily lives is key to our wellbeing. NATO’s purpose is to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means. Over more than 70 years NATO has grown to an alliance of 31 members. The recent NATO Summit in Vilnius has been hailed as an historic moment for the future of Europe and the North Atlantic area. What is NATO, what does it do, and what role does it play in rural areas? Jessica Sellick investigates. ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What is NATO? The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was formed in 1949 with the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty in Washington. The treaty created an alliance of 10 European and 2 North American states: UK, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United States. It was formed to ensure their collective security and preservation and intended to counter the perceived threat from the then Soviet Union. 

Since then, 19 more countries have joined NATO through 9 rounds of enlargement (in 1952, 1955, 1982, 1999, 2004, 2009, 2017, 2020 and 2023) leading to 31 members. The treaty itself is short – containing just 14 articles. These commit members to share the risk, responsibilities and benefits of collective defence. Article 5 states that an armed attack against one shall be considered an attack against them all. It commits allies to assist the party or parties attacked “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”. Article 6 sets out the geographical boundaries of NATO – currently Europe and North America and in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer. Article 5 was involved for the first time the day after the 11 September 2001 attacks in America. This saw NATO actively engage in the fight against terrorism, and launch its first operations out the Euro-Atlantic area.  

The articles embody a set of values around individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. They also require members not to enter into any international commitments that conflict with the treaty and that they commit to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations (UN). The treaty provides the structure which enables the goals of NATO to be implemented – although some accession protocols have been added as new members have joined, very little has changed.    

What is NATO’s Strategic Concept? This is the official statement of NATO’s values and purpose and its fundamental tasks and roles. Alongside the treaty, the Strategic Concept is viewed as an important document. 

The concept provides an assessment of the international security environment, and the Alliance’s approach to addressing the issues and challenges that it faces. At its summit in Madrid in June 2022, NATO adopted a new Strategic Concept. This reaffirms NATO’s key purpose in ensuring collective defence, based on a 360-degree approach. It defines the Alliance’s three core tasks: (i) deterrence and defence, (ii) crisis prevention and management, and (iii) cooperative security. The Strategic Concept emphasises that ensuring national and collective resilience is critical to all of these core tasks and underpins NATO’s efforts to safeguard nations, societies and shared values. It further emphasises the importance of investing in technological innovation and integrating climate change, human security, and the women, peace and security agenda across these core tasks. A vision is set out in the Strategic Concept: “we want to live in a world where sovereignty, territorial integrity, human rights and international law are respective and where each country can choose its own path, free from aggression, coercion or subversion. We work with all who share these goals. We stand together, as Allies, to defend our freedom and contribute to a more peaceful world” (page 3). 

How do countries join NATO – and can they leave? Greece and Turkey were the first to join the founding 12 members in 1952, followed by Germany in 1955. Spain joined in 1982. The Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland subsequently became members in 1999. 2004 saw the accession of 7 countries: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Albania and Croatia joined in 2009, followed by Montenegro in 2017 and the Republic of North Macedonia in 2020. Finland became the latest member, joining in April 2023. 

Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty sets out how countries can join the Alliance. This states that NATO membership is open to “any other European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area”. Any decision to invite a country to join the Alliance is taken by the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s political decision-making body, on the basis of consensus among all Allies. 

The accession process involves seven steps: 

  1. Accession talks confirm the invited countries willingness and ability to meet the political, legal and military obligations and commitments of NATO membership. 
  2. The aspiring country’s foreign minister sends a letter of intent to the NATO Secretary General formally accepting the obligations and commitments of membership, and a timetable for the completion of any require reforms (where applicable). 
  3. An Accession Protocol is signed by all NATO members. 
  4. The Protocol is then ratified by each individual member. 
  5. Once all member countries have notified the US Government [the depositary of the treaty] of their acceptance, the Secretary General then invites the potential new member to accede to the North Atlantic Treaty. 
  6. The invited country accedes to the North Atlantic Treaty in accordance with their national procedures. 
  7. Upon depositing their instruments of accession with the US Government, the invited country formally becomes a member of NATO. 

In practice, the accession process can often take several years. Bosnia and Herzegovina is participating in the Membership Action Plan (MAP). This was launched in 1999 to help aspiring countries prepare for future membership. A map is prepared with each prospective county looking at their political, legal, military, defence and security aspects and identifies any areas in need of reform. Notwithstanding this, Finland submitted its letter to join NATO on 18 May 2022 and it deposited its instrument of accession on 4 April 2023. Sweden is expected to become the 32nd Member once Turkey has ratified the Accession Protocol for Sweden.     

Article 13 of the treaty gives Allies the right to leave NATO should they wish to do so: “any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given”. So far, no country has left NATO. However, in 1966, France decided to withdraw from NATO’s integrated military structure (returning again in 2009) but it remained a member of NATO.  

How is NATO run? Major decisions are approved by heads of governments and at state summits that take place every 1-2 years. In between summits, the foreign and defence ministers of Allies meet regularly. The North Atlantic Council (NAC) is the principal political decision-making body at NATO and each member country has a seat on the Council. It normally meets weekly and is chaired by the Secretary General.  The top military post within NATO is the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR).  

In 1955 NATO formed the Parliamentary Assembly. On 18 July 1955, 158 parliamentarians from 14 NATO nations attended a six-day ‘Conference of Members of Parliament from the NATO Countries’ meeting in Paris. In 1966 delegates agreed to rename the organisation the ‘North Atlantic Assembly’. In 1999 it was renamed again to ‘NATO Parliamentary Assembly’ (PA). 

The NATO PA provides a forum for parliamentarians from NATO Member States to promote debate on key security challenges, facilitate mutual understanding, and support national parliamentary oversight of defence matters. It is seen as a platform for strengthening the transatlantic relationship and the values which underpin the Alliance. The PA is institutionally separate from NATO, but it serves as an essential link between NATO and the parliaments of NATO nations. 

Since the end of the Cold War, the Assembly has assumed a new role by integrating into its work parliamentarians from countries seeking a closer association with NATO. Through this form of parliamentary diplomacy, the Assembly contributes to mutual understanding and to the strengthening of parliamentary democracy throughout the Euro-Atlantic region and beyond, thereby complementing and reinforcing NATO’s own programme of partnership and cooperation.

The NATO PA consists of 274 delegates from the 31 NATO Member States. Each delegation is based on the country’s size and the UK has 18 seats in the Assembly. The whole Assembly meets twice a year: in the spring and in the autumn. It has a Standing Committee comprising the head of each member delegation, the President and Vice President of NATO PA, the Treasurer and the Secretary General. The Assembly also has five committees: (i) democracy and security, (ii) defence and security, (iii) economics and security, (iv) political, and (v) science and technology. They are supported by sub-committees which can explore policy issues in more detail. The Secretary General leads the International Secretariat, and is responsible for all of the Assembly’s administration, research and analysis. 

How is NATO funded? NATO is resourced through the direct and indirect contributions of its members. Direct contributions are made to collective budgets and programmes on an agreed cost-share formula, based on Gross National Income. This equates to EUR 3.3 billion in 2023 and is used to run the entire organisation and its military commands. NATO has three principal common-funded budgets: the civil budget, for NATO headquarters; (ii) the military budget, for the NATO command structure; and (iii) the security investment programme – for military infrastructure and capabilities. The North Atlantic Council oversees this common funding process, supported by the Resource Policy and Planning Board, the Budget Committee and the Investment Committee. NATO does not have its own armed forces so when the North Atlantic Council unanimously decides to engage in an operation or mission, Allies commit troops, equipment and support on a voluntary basis. Each member covers the costs associated with their deployments. 

In 2006, NATO defence ministers agreed to commit, or work towards committing, a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance’s military readiness. NATO publishes an annual compendium of financial, personnel and economic data for all member countries. This includes identifying which countries have reached or surpassed this 2% target. The UK has consistently spent more than 2% of GDP on defence.    

What role does NATO have in rural areas? Much of the defence estate of NATO Members is found in rural areas – this is because of the space required to carry out defence activities such as training soldiers or landing aircraft. Military bases have wider socio-economic impacts on policy areas such as schools, housing, skills, employment, transport and demand on services. Military sites can also be used to deliver environmental goals.  Yet the role the military play in rural areas and its implications are not fully understood or discussed. There is an opportunity to consider what this military presence means (or might mean) for rural communities for individual Members and for the Alliance overall. 

Where next?On 11 and 12 July 2023 NATO held its latest summit in Vilnius. Here leaders made decisions and set out NATO’s strategic direction for the near and longer-term future. 

“We have just concluded an historic NATO Summit. Over the past two days, we took major decisions to adapt our Alliance for the future. We agreed NATO’s most detailed and robust defence plans since the Cold War. We strengthened our commitment to defence investment. We agreed to bring Ukraine closer to the Alliance and step up support for the long haul. And we deepened our partnerships around the world even more”, Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General. 

The Summit came with pledges of long-term support to Ukraine, a decision by Turkey to lift its veto on Sweden joining the Alliance (which will now require national ratification), and an increased focus on China in seeing how its ambitions may challenge NATO’s interests, security and values. NATO’s greatest strength is the spirit of solidarity and cohesion that it fosters amongst its Members. And with its continued relevance and enlargement it will continue to play an important role in the borderlands of Europe and more widely.         …………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently evaluating hospital discharge and hospital avoidance schemes, and a service that supports older people to maintain their independence. Jessica also sits on the board of a Housing Association that supports older people and a charity supporting Cambridgeshire’s rural communities. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Load More