Mapping the Third Sector in Rural Scotland: An Initial Review of the Literature
The report is a review of the literature on the nature and extent of third sector activity and volunteering in rural areas of Scotland.
6 The Scottish rural third sector: Key areas of evidence
6.1 This chapter examines what existing research can tell us about the nature of the third sector’s activities in rural Scotland to build on the findings so far presented.
6.2 SCVO (2010) identify on the basis of the results of their 2008 – 2009 panel survey that it is in the fields of social care and development, economic development and culture and recreation that there are the largest number of ‘regulated’ voluntary sector35 organisations.
6.3 However there appears little coherent evidence around the nature of the services delivered by larger third sector organisations in rural areas. The greatest body of evidence appears to be around smaller-scale community activity.
6.4 Hall and Skerratt (2010: 42) identify that: “Community-level participation projects have been taking place in many forms for decades across rural Scotland, through voluntary activity, social enterprises, community ownership and/or management of assets, participatory service design and business planning. There is little systematic evidence about the impacts for rural Scotland as a whole, since much is local level, individual and distinct. This hampers understanding”.
6.5 In order to take a thematic approach in drawing together this local level activity, it is around the bodies of case study evidence which appear most developed that this chapter is organised.
Service delivery
6.6 Pickering (2003: 1) in work discussing “innovative methods of service delivery in rural Scotland” states that “there is no ‘ideal’ way of providing services - a diverse range of joined-up approaches to service delivery, designed to complement one another, are required to meet the needs of rural Scotland” if the “…role that voluntary organisations and communities can play in the provision of services…” is to be realised. Pickering suggests that the sharing of premises, the use of mobile facilities, the use of new technology and the development of community-run services are all potentially helpful ways of employing innovative methods in service delivery, offering case studies to support these claims. Indeed, discussion around the nature of service provision in rural areas has been ongoing36.
Rural community buildings
6.7 One means to achieve this has been through the community led provision of spaces for rural communities to gather - spaces central to the sustenance of vibrant rural communities such as GPs, primary schools, a shop and a community hall (Philip et al. 2003). With regards to spaces in rural communities in which the third sector has a role, the literature appears most well developed in the area of ‘community facilities’. Those who use and run them argue that they are a ‘lifeblood to the village’ and a ‘heart to the community’ (Rural Partnerships 2006). Indeed, the Halls for All campaign (SCVO 2008a) was specifically formed to urge the recognition of the importance of village and community halls in rural Scotland.
6.8 Skerratt et al. (2008) define rural community facilities (RCFs) as “local assets which serve as central points or “hubs”, and as venues for service provision, from within and outwith the community, sometimes providing for the co-location of multiple services”.
6.9 In establishing the use, provision and condition of these facilities in Scotland37 it is found that around 80% of RCFs are owned by the local community, with just under 80% registered as charities. ACRE (2010) similarly find in a national survey in England that 90% are registered charities, whilst a national study for DEFRA puts this slightly lower at 82% (Rural Partnerships 2006).
6.10 Skerratt et al. (2008) also find that just under 40% of those RCFs responding to the survey employed no staff, relying entirely on volunteers (equally however, the majority did employ at least one member of staff – full or part time – a role “not inconsequential” in rural communities). The recruitment and retention of volunteers was often a challenge, longer term business planning was not common, and almost one third of facilities reported operating with a budget deficit.
6.11 The authors (ibid) also find that many RCFs have difficulty in recruiting and retaining volunteers, apparently due to perceived bureaucracy and legislative burdens, as well as a more general reluctance to be involved. In addition, there appear particular challenges of sustainability, with less than 25% of RCFs preparing a business plan in the last five years.
6.12 The authors argue that “many RCFs could be called “social enterprises” in that they “trade” and market their facilities to a wide range of users, whether individuals from the area or groups or service providers. They are a venue for a range of activities, some of which generate at least some income for the RCF”.
6.13 There are clear challenges for RCFs in terms of sustainable funding streams, long term management and the maintenance of the buildings themselves. However the authors identify a possible way forward: “less than one-fifth were used for public services (such as a library, local authority services, a post office, a GP surgery or other health services)…there may be scope for innovative ways of providing greater access to health services through these buildings. It may be worthwhile considering whether there could or should be greater partnership between public sector service providers and rural community facilities”. (See also NPP DESERVE 2008).
Community retailing
6.14 In a further example of the role of third sector activity providing services, the Community Retailing Network (2011) provides illustrations across Scotland of the community purchase and management of retailing services in the face of closure. The Eid Community Co-Op, Shetland, for example, was established following the closure of the only shop in the community in 2002. Subsequently the community voted to take on and run the shop itself, now with a manager, four part time staff and four after school helpers. The shop also provides a location in which the local Post Office is run.
Community energy
6.15 Community Energy Scotland (Community Energy Scotland 2011) profile a wide range of case studies in which they have provided “free advice, grant funding and finance for renewable energy projects developed by community groups to benefit their community”.
6.16 The Knoydart Foundation for example, a company limited by guarantee and a registered charity which was primarily formed to facilitate community buyout in this remote rural Highland community, accessed the services of Community Energy Scotland to upgrade the hydro-electric scheme which supplied energy to the local community.
6.17 The Community Owned Isle of Gigha established trading arm Gigha Renewable Energy Limited accessed support in establishing a community wind farm which is grid-connected and community owned, providing for the energy needs of the Island and exporting the surplus thereby generating income.
6.18 The Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust, a further example of the community purchase of land, undertook the electrification of the entire Island employing hydro-electric, wind and solar energy. Subsequently ‘Eigg Energy’, a subsidiary company of the Trust, was established.
6.19 With regard to community energy projects, a wealth of information is available from the individual websites of such groups. Take for example the “Here We Are” project (a charity and company limited by guarantee) providing a range of resources including information and education via a heritage centre for the local community and visitors to Cairndow, Argyll, which has established the ‘Our Power’ CIC to trade as a biomass plant heating water by burning locally felled and chipped wood for a local salmon hatchery with the aim of making the wider activities of ‘Here We Are’ financially sustainable within 5 years.
Community recycling
6.20 The Community Recycling Network for Scotland provides a number of examples of the enterprising activity being undertaken in rural Scotland regarding this emerging element of the sector.
6.21 For example, it offers as a case study the Highland area in which nine social enterprises are engaged by the Highland Council, diverting almost 4,000 tonnes of waste away from landfill (8% of the total recycling and composting). This is in addition to the social benefits of these social enterprises which during 2009 – 2010 will employ more than 130 FTE staff and provide 205 training places each year (Community Recycling Network Scotland 2009b).
6.22 Indeed in 2008/9 Community Recycling Network Scotland had 125 members, handling 72,945.2 tonnes of material. There appears a particularly strong presence of members in rural LAs, with the greatest number of organisations per head found in Orkney Islands, Western Isles, Shetland Islands, Highland and Moray (Community Recycling Network 2009a: 2).
Community transport
6.23 Transport has been shown to be consistently ranked as the primary ”immediate priority for improvement” in all levels of rurality (Commission for Rural Communities 2010). Further, the ‘Voices from Rural Scotland’ report (SCVO 2008b) found that there was pronounced dissatisfaction with transport in rural Scotland, and suggests “…that the problem with service provision in rural areas is not one of dissatisfaction with the services themselves. The critical issue is one of accessing such services”.
6.24 There appears a strong presence of community transport organisations in rural areas. However, the evidence of this is severely limited. An example of data which has been collected is that of the Community Transport Association which has mapped its member organisations in Scotland and those associations of which it is aware but are not members (see appendix five). Whilst this clearly only maps ‘on the radar’ activity, and does not provide information about the size of each organisation, it demonstrates recognition of the need to undertake such activity.
Development Trusts and community land purchase
6.25 Development Trusts are “owned and managed by the local community; aim to achieve the sustainable regeneration of a community or address a range of economic, social, environmental and cultural issues within a community; are independent but seek to work in partnership with other private, public and third sector organisations; and aim to reduce dependency on grant support by generating income through enterprise and the ownership of assets. All trading surpluses are principally reinvested in the organisation or the community” (DTAS 2011)
6.26 DTAS have applied the Scottish Government eight-fold rural/urban classification of rurality to its data and, as of 2009, calculated that “just over 70% of our membership is located in rural communities” (DTAS: personal communication). DTAS currently has 179 full and provisional members across Scotland.
Development Trusts perform a very wide range of functions in addition to purely ‘service’ related roles. DTAS (2011) list a selection of the activities undertaken and services provided by development trusts (figure 6.2).
|
|
Figure 6.2: ‘What is a development trust?’
(DTAS 2011)
6.27 There appears to be no ‘typical’ development trust. It is not possible to search by rurality, and any case studies offered here cannot be said to be representative however case studies operating in rural areas can be identified.
6.28 There is a strong emphasis on community land purchase, one example which summarises the breadth of activity often undertaken by these organisations is the ‘Assynt Foundation’, with the following extract taken from its DTAS entry:
“The Assynt Foundation was established as part of the community land buy-out of the Glencanisp and Drumrunie Estates, in the parish of Assynt in the North-West Highlands of Scotland. In June 2005, the community of Assynt bought these estates, 44,500 acres of land under provisions of the 2003 Land Reform (Scotland) Act. The area includes mountains, moorland and woodland, an old Victorian hunting Lodge other even older houses and semi-derelict farmsteads and shielings and a wildlife-rich world of lochs, lochans, rivers and hills. The aim of the Assynt Foundation is to help ensure the sustainability of the community, which has suffered significant losses in employment in recent years due to a downturn in traditional staple industries of agriculture and fishing, by creating new employment and encouraging more business opportunities, whilst at the same time safeguarding the natural and cultural heritage of the land for future generations and the enjoyment of the wider public. The Foundation set up Assynt.Biz, which is a trading company wholly owned by the Assynt Foundation, to undertake the income generating activities which currently are: 1) Deer stalking and venison sales 2) Commercial letting of property and land for holiday, residential and business use 3) Residential & Specialised “Activity” courses/breaks (e.g. writers and artists retreats) and 4) Sale of fishing permits and the rental of fishing and other sporting equipment. We are also investigating an affordable housing initiative and a potential renewable energy project”.
6.29 Indeed there appears an increasing ‘community land purchase’ movement in Scotland (see Skerratt 2011 for an in-depth examination of seventeen such land trusts in remote and rural Scotland). In addition to the examples above there are a range of further examples of this activity available from a number of sources including the Scottish Community Land Network: (SCLN 2011) and Community Land Trusts (CLT 2011). Morris (2010) reviews Sleat Community Trust which formed in 2004 in response to the need for a local community organisation to receive a proportion of the income from a local windfarm which was planned (but has yet to be taken forward). Nevertheless the Trust has, in response to the threatened closure of the local filling station and post office taken on the running of these services and is looking toward renewable energy options and the purchase of a nearby forestry plantation.
6.30 There also appears a significant community woodland movement across Scotland. In recognition of the recreational, biodiversity and conservation, economic development, renewable energy and social inclusion potential for woodland an increasing number of communities are taking on the management and development of their woods either as entirely volunteer run organisations or in conjunction with paid workers to build ‘sustainable, flourishing, creative, resilient and vibrant communities’ (Community Woodland Association 2011b). Although it is not possible to summarise the distribution of these woodlands by rurality, with a sizeable number in urban areas as well as rural, the Community Woodlands Association have mapped their membership across Scotland which suggests the movement appears particularly well represented in the Highlands and Islands (Community Woodlands Association 2011a).
LEADER and rural community development in Scotland.
6.31 LEADER, a European funded community initiative and part of the Scottish Rural Development Programme, aims to “increase the capacity of local rural community and business networks to build knowledge and skills, innovate and co-operate in order to tackle local development objectives”, is administered through Local Action Groups (LAGs), is eligible to the ‘whole of rural Scotland’ and open to ‘constituted community groups, micro or small businesses, voluntary organisations or public sector bodies with a project idea that will benefit the rural community’ as well as in some cases “individuals who have public support for their project” (Scottish Government 2007a: 2). The “approach rather than a programme” has a six year budget of just under £60 million starting from 2006 (Hall and Skerratt 2010: 49)
6.32 There is, therefore, a key role for the third sector in ‘… the development of new and innovative approaches to rural service delivery, including establishing resourced and sustainable community based delivery organisations that can take forward important local projects…’ (Chris Parkin, Lanark Rural Development Trust, cited in Hall and Skerratt 2010: 49). These might start with community led plans and local action plans which begin to help residents identify key concerns and means of addressing them from within the community. Each of the LAGs (of which there are 20) has a web presence which can be accessed via the SRDP website (Scottish Government 2011a) – these LAGs do not always correspond with LA boundaries, recognising that there can be areas of pronounced rurality within LAs which may have a predominantly rural population. Though not consistent across all groups, a number of LAGs offer databases of those projects which have received LEADER support from which case studies might be drawn.
Specific populations
6.33 Third sector activity also appears to be effective at targeting defined sectors of the population. By way of example, the O4O (Older people for Older people) project – an EU Northern Periphery Programme - worked in a number of remote and rural locations across Finland, Greenland, Sweden, Northern Ireland and Scotland. It aimed to support and develop services for a particular sector of the population. Specifically, it aimed to:
- Identify their needs for services to help maintain older people living at home.
- Identify gaps in service provision that would help statutory providers to keep older people living in their homes and communities.
- Develop new ways of providing supporting services involving community members.
- Assist in the development of volunteering, social organisations and social enterprises.
6.34 It focussed in particular on community transport, community-owned supported housing for older people, helping schemes, friendship schemes, volunteering to support older people and history and culture projects (O4O 2009a, 2009b).
6.35 In the Scottish context, the areas of Tongue (community transport), Assynt (remote rural residential care), SW Ross (neighbourly support) and Ardersier (oral history) have participated in the project in Highland.
6.36 In Tongue, the community transport group (originally set up as a subgroup of a local community development company and now considering moving toward forming as a separate social enterprise) operates at three levels: 1) coordination of informal lift sharing, 2) a community car scheme and 3) a “transport service which is designed to meet community need but can also generate income”. On the basis of the ‘sense of place and increased confidence’ generated as part of the Ardersier project a community company to develop community assets and services has also been founded (O40 2010).
6.37 Voluntary and third sector activity may therefore be particularly effective at achieving multiple goals of social inclusion, improved health and wellbeing and improved services, as evidenced by this example in rural and remote rural areas, tackling the ‘silo thinking’ of conventional methods of service delivery (Osborne et al. 2011).
Specific areas
6.38 Again it is the Highlands and Islands which form the basis for an in-depth examination of local level third sector activity. SQW (2002) research the social economy of the Highlands and Islands and on the basis of the identification of 8,142 groups, separate them into a number of categories according to the area in which they function. They find that ‘sports groups’ appear to be the most numerous, with those falling into the ‘arts, culture and music’ then ‘social care’ and ‘social groups’ categories also being particularly great in number.
6.39 Literature at the local level is also helpful in offering examples of such activity. The Highland Voluntary Sector Forum (2007) set out examples of the way in which the third sector is contributing strongly in areas of equalities, environment, rural transport, mental health services, children’s services, young carers, counselling services, elderly people, employment, drugs and alcohol, culture and volunteering. Annual reports of volunteering and third sector infrastructure organisations can also be helpful in providing case study evidence of local third sector service provision activity. Finally, The ‘Rural Gateway’ resource, as the online presence of the Scotland National Rural Network (SNRN 2011), provides a great range of examples of rural community development. The SNRN aims to build a social network, connecting rural Scotland and promoting rural development through building an online and offline community inspired by projects already underway and informed by advice on funding sources and contacts.
Summary
6.40 It is of fundamental importance to repeat that this is a review of existing research which has been undertaken on the roles of the rural third sector in Scotland, not a review of the nature of activity as exists. Therefore, the themes which have emerged may be as much a function of research interest or policy focus, as of importance to rural communities.
6.41 There may be – on the basis of earlier chapters – a particular role for the rural third sector in supporting certain activity: for example transport, housing, community energy, community asset ownership, health care and so on. Evidence for this, however, is generally case study-by-case study, and it is challenging to develop a coherent picture. Equally, whilst this chapter has aimed to draw together the key areas of case-study evidence regarding third sector activity in rural areas, it cannot be said that these are more characteristic of rural areas than urban areas.
6.42 There has also been a focus here on local level third sector activity, rather than an examination of the larger scale service delivery of third sector organisations through contacts at the Local Authority level. Again, this is absolutely not to suggest that such activity is insignificant. Indeed as we have seen the sector is receiving an increasing amount of income from statutory sources, which in the Scottish sector has seen a marked decrease in grants and a corresponding increase in contracts and service level agreements. More research exploring existing data, and more freely available data regarding the nature and extent of this activity is needed so that a fuller understanding of the activities undertaken and services provided by both community-level organisations and larger national voluntary organisations in rural areas might be gained.
6.43 Nevertheless, thematically there are several areas of literature which appear to be greater in size than others. Rural infrastructure – including transport and energy – has been highlighted as a particular challenge for the population of rural Scotland. Case studies across rural Scotland (however again focussing in the Highlands and Islands) have shown the third sector to have a strong role in addressing these concerns. Rural community facilities may play a particularly strong role in rural communities, and in the overwhelming number of cases to be owned by the local community. They provide sites of social capital development, employment, voluntary activity and as existing (and potential) sites of multi-service delivery.
6.44 There are a wealth of case studies demonstrating the role of rural third sector activity in the fields of community energy projects, the provision of community owned and run services (including shops/post offices, gyms, transport, care homes), community land purchase and community woodlands as well as smaller scale rural community development projects delivered by organisations identifying themselves variously as community trusts, community interest companies, social enterprises, or charities.
6.45 There is a great diversity to the Scottish rural third sector. It is impossible to review the whole of the sector given the constraints of this project. The creation of a comprehensive view of this element of the sector which does the sector justice is, however, hampered by a number of further factors. These include a lack of consistent definition, a lack of research which allows direct comparison between urban and rural areas, umbrella organisations which represent sub-sectoral elements relying on membership to make estimates regarding distribution, the challenge posed with regard to resources for local level bodies attempting to collect data on their immediate areas, and the challenge posed in untangling the influence of ‘rurality’ in influencing the nature and extent of the third sector landscape in rural areas as distinct from other socio-economic factors.
Contact
Email: Kay Barclay
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback