Author: Pauline Hinchion, SCRT

‘Social Finance: Social Investment: Social Banking – what makes them Social?’

With the growth of Social Finance including Social Investment and Social Banking how do we ensure that it meets the demands of the wider third sector and what is the link between social finance and the creation of a more equal and sustainable society.

Scottish Community Re: Investment Trust is delighted to host the first Conference looking at Social Finance. The conference will be of interest to those who want to learn more about social finance; how we know that it is social and how it works in other countries.

Bringing together practitioners from a range of countries, delegates will be also be able to attend workshops and listen to panel discussions in order to inform their wider understanding of social finance.

SCRT’s first Conference  will be held on 19th Nov at the Roxburghe Hotel in Edinburgh. This event is the first of its kind in Scotland and a range of discounted rates are available to SCRT members and others.

To see event programme click here 

For details of speakers click here

To book your place click here

Author: Scotsman

AN inner-city Glasgow suburb has launched a direct assault on global trade – by setting up its own currency. The People’s Bank of Govanhill  aims to work with local people to design a new form of currency for Govanhill. The notes are designed on the tiling of the Govanhill baths. 

It can already be used to buy bread, coffee, books and clothes in a number of shops. Issued by The People’s Bank of Govanhill, the concept is the brainchild of Ailie Rutherford, 39, who is the artist in residence at Govanhill Baths community hub. The scheme follows the launch of other alternative currencies such as the Brixton and Bristol pounds, but is more focused on bridging the gap between rich and poor, she said.

Ailie explained: “The project is about working with people in the local area to design a local currency that is right for Govanhill. One of the major criticisms of pound-for-pound schemes is that they really don’t do very much for people who are experiencing poverty. Those schemes often work well for businesses but are not so easily used by people in poverty. What we’re trying to do here is develop a new form of currency that is relevant for everyone in the community.”

The design of the notes is taken from the green, red and white tiling in the Govanhill Baths. And the notes feature writing in English, Urdu, Slovakian and Chinese, which are four of the most prominently used languages in the area.

The currency has a variable exchange rate. The suggested exchangefor a Govanhill note is a hundredth of a person’s weekly income, but people are asked to pay what they can, or pledge time of they can’t afford to pay in cash.

She said they were looking to perfect the model for the benefit of those living in poverty. Her idea is that poor people benefit from the generosity of those who are better off in the area as the more money they put in then the more their note is worth.

Ailie added: “I spent a lot of time talking to people who used the baths and the local community about how they saw the area developing and what changes they would like to take place. It is a really diverse community, one of the most diverse in Scotland, with a huge number of languages spoken and a lot of independent shops. We had a lot of conversations about things like resource consumption, new technologies and community ownership.

I hope to get more and more people involved in designing this currency. It would be nice to get to a point somewhere down the line where different local artists made their own designs for different editions of the note

An exchange booth of 800 screen-printed notes ran earlier this year with only businesses within the Govanhill Baths accepting the notes. Notes will be readily available at an exchange booth in arts centre Tramway between October and January to be spent at local shops. The scheme will run in conjunction with the Turner Prize to encourage visitors to use shops close to the Tramway where the exhibition is being held.

The scheme is now being used by a number of social enterprise businesses, including Bakery 47, Milk Cafe, and Locavore. Jim Monaghan, 52, administrator for the Govanhill community trust, said: “This is a great scheme to be a part of. People have been able to buy a pound for 60 pence. It’s a long-term development which we’re 100 per cent behind. Govanhill is such a uniquely diverse area with 77 different nationalities speaking 52 languages, cramped into a space holding 14,000 people.

A localised currency works a lot better in a close-knit community and I can’t think many more close than Govanhill. It’s a bit of a reaction to an increasingly globalised economy and is a throwback to 50 years ago when each community would have a co-operative association which meant that money earned in the community would stay in the community.”

Author: Les Huckfield

EU Funds Update

As previously, there are links throughout this EU Funds Update. If any links in this Update don’t work, please email info@eufunds.scot (which is our new e mail address) for a direct link or file copy.

European Social Fund is available under 5 Social Inclusion Strategic Objectives, which for many readers will form the most accessible and relevant part of current EU Funding.  There is also a detailed summary of the four ERDF Strategic Packages which are most relevant to third sector organisations.

The “big news” is still that ESF Employability Allocations have now been approved for 16 of Scotland’s 32 Local Authorities and for the National Employability Programme run by Skills Development Scotland. Please  visit this link and, if your local authority has an ESF approval, please made contact as advised below.

Continuing our series of EU Funds Masterclasses, Les Huckfield will be delivering another EU Funds Masterclass for the Scottish Borders Region at 1030 on Friday 30 October 2015 at The Buccleuch Arms, Melrose. Please use this link to make your reservation. Les is also speaking at the following events:

•             Voluntary Action Scotland Third Sector Interface Conference at the Beardmore Hotel, Clydebank on Tuesday 13 October 2015

•             Community Transport Association Annual Conference at Gogarburn on Tuesday 03 November 2015

•             CRNS Annual Conference at the Scottish Parliament on Friday 06 November 2015

1)   STRATEGIC INTERVENTION LEADS

Scotland’s EU Structural Fund Programmes for 2014-2020 (ERDF and ESF) will be delivered through 14 different Strategic Intervention Lead Partners, each of which is issuing a detailed description of the focus on which their delivery of funds will be targeted, managed and co-financed.

As emphasised in previous EU Funds Updates, unless future applications fit within the descriptions of these Strategic Interventions, they are unlikely to be successful. Previous EU Funds Updates have provided latest information about these Strategic Interventions.

This EU Funds Update focuses especially on latest developments in the 5 Social Inclusion Strategic Objectives – probably the most important part of all these Programmes for Bulletin readers.

For further details about Strategic Leads and local delivery information the Scottish Government has published this list of contacts for Strategic Lead Partner Organisations, including Local Councils.

Please note that many of these may not yet be in a position to provide potential applicants with further information at this stage.

2) FIVE ESF STRATEGIC LEADS – PROMOTING SOCIAL INCLUSION, COMBATING POVERTY AND ANY DISCRIMINATION

This week, this Section includes important new information. Most titles highlighted in blue are links. Please click on these links for further information.

This “Thematic Objective” – with €89mn ESF – includes five Strategic Objectives set out below.

Strategic Objective 21 – Financial Inclusion Programme, delivered through Big Lottery. Please click on the link for further details, including the bidding timetable in the five selected areas of Argyll and Bute, Dundee, Glasgow, Inverclyde and North Ayrshire. Latest information from Big Lottery is that though it has received official approval as the Strategic Lead partner, Operational Programme details are still being worked out. This still means that this timetable is running late. Many third sector organistions will be involved in consortia which will be tendering in these areas.

Strategic Objective 22 Poverty and Social Inclusion (coupled with Employability Strategic Objectives 11 and 12). This part of the ESF Programme is being delivered through Local Authorities. This is an updated version of the presentation which Leslie Huckfield made at the initial meeting of the Employability Social Enterprise Network in Glasgow on Wednesday 05 August 2015.

This is an important new Network. Organisations interested should contact mailto:jayne.chappell@socialfirms.org.ukjayne.chappell@socialfirms.org.uk%20

The important news is that ESF Employability Allocations have now been approved for Skills Development Scotland for its National Employability Programme and for 16 out of 32 Local Authorities. Colleagues should visit this link and ask relevant Local Authorities how they intend to proceed. Les and Jayne have prepared a table showing latest developments for each local authority. Though this includes ESF Employability Allocations, where these have been approved by Scottish Government, this is still incomplete,. So if you have any information to add, please kindly click on this link return the file to Jayne at the address above. She has also sent this table to all Employablity Social Enterprise Network members who have already registered an interest.

Strategic Objective 23 – Disadvantaged Communities to develop long term solutions to increase active inclusion and reduce poverty. Scottish Government and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are currently working out how this community based Strategic Objective will be delivered and information will be made available as soon as possible. Once the application process starts, they will be looking for evidence that community based organisations and anchors have credible plans and the capacity to deliver. £12mn is available for Central Scotland and £8mn for Highlands and Islands. This is 100% funding so applicants won’t have to find match funding.

Strategic Objective 24 – Increase the Sustainability and Capacity of the Social Economy to deliver support to the most disadvantaged areas and groups.  Scottish Government and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are currently consulting on delivery, for which Senscot and Social Firms Scotland attended an important consultation in Glasgow on Wednesday 15 July 2015. Please see link below for further information. As they emerge, further details will be available in future EU Funds Updates.

Strategic Objective 25 – Support and Encourage Social Innovation and Solutions. Scottish Government and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are currently consulting on delivery, for which Senscot and Social Firms Scotland attended an important consultation in Glasgow. Please see link below for further information. For Social Innovation – a new concept for ESF – there will be funding for three Stages. Stage One will be for smaller applications to test and try out new approaches’. Stage Two will be for growing these. Stage Three will look for sustainability after this funding and an exit  strategy. 

There is new important information on these two Strategic Objectives 24 and 25 from Scottish Government and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. The Strategic Intervention proposal (draft and not yet approved by the managing Authority) is being jointly developed by the Scottish Government Third Sector Unit and Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) and covers the whole of Scotland.

As usual, this information comes with the usual health warning that things may change in future.

Youth Employment Initiative. This is a separate ESF initiative with €46.30mn matched by an amount from mainstream ESF, for NEETS aged 16 to 29. YEI is administered through Scottish Funding Council and 12 local authorities to focus on employer recruitment. Please follow the link for further details.

National Third Sector Employability Programme. To be delivered through Skills Development Scotland, this €12mn ESF Programmes is for 3 years and will invite 3 year proposals.  Details are still awaited. Applications will need details of match funding.

3) FOUR ERDF STRATEGIC INTERVENTION LEADS

The following are ERDF Strategic Intervention Leads of interest to Bulletin readers. A similar posting about these Strategic Intervention Leads has appeared in previous EU Funds Updates.

Les Huckfield has prepared this Summary Note on four ERDF Strategic Packages which are most relevant for third sector organisations. As usual, this information is published with a “health warning”, since it represents latest available information – which may change in future.

Green Infrastructure – a total package of approximately £37.5mn be delivered by Scottish Natural Heritage. Please follow the title link for Interim SNH Guidance.

Low Carbon Travel and Transport  – ERDF to be delivered by Transport Scotland. Please follow the title link for Interim Note from Transport Scotland, which has £25mn ERDF for delivery of £62.5mn total project costs.

Resource Efficient Circular Economy Accelerator Programme – ERDF to be delivered by Zero Waste Scotland. Please follow the link for Interim Note from Zero Waste Scotland. 

Low Carbon Infrastructure Transition Programme  – ERDF being delivered by Scottish Government and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Eligibility includes “Community groups, Registered Charities, Third Sector, Community Benefit Societies and Community Interest Companies”. This is the Initial Contact Form to be used for access to this Strategic Intervention. This presentation offers a good overview of the Low Carbon Strategic Intervention.

As more details of these become available, further information and guidance from other Strategic Leads will be posted in EU Funds Updates.

4) SCOTTISH RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (SRDP)

The SRDP will be delivered through a number of schemes, not all of which are directly farming related. This link provides details of Schemes of more interest to members.  

5) DRAFT EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST

To help potential applicants, Leslie Huckfield has designed a Draft Expression of Interest form, which includes issues potential applicants need to consider before the official bidding processes start.

If you would like to “try out” your ideas, please complete this form and send to Les Huckfield at mailto:info@eufunds.scotinfo@eufunds.scot%20as soon as possible.

Please note that this is not an official form. Its purpose is to encourage potential applicants with ideas for projects to formulate expressions of interest in line with the focused and targeted approach of current ESF, ERDF and SRDP Programme. Completion of this form and any initial response is no guarantee of funding in future.

Finally, thank you for your patience in reading through this.

If any links in this EU Funds Update don’t work, please e mail mailto:info@eufunds.scotfor a direct link or file copy.

Author: Stewart Paterson, Evening Times

First Bus plans to divert its number 10 service away from Sighthill in the north of the city to make journeys quicker for people in other areas.

The bus giant said not enough people are using the bus in Sighthill and plans to stop entering the community in two weeks.

Maryhill and Springburn MSP Patricia Ferguson said the bus industry need to be re-regulated to ensure unprofitable routes are not sacrificed for more lucrative ones.

One local resident contacted First about the change and was told despite being aware of the inconvenience it would cause in order to benefit others the only full service in Sighthill was being withdrawn.

First said the “customer base” in Sighthill had reduced in recent years.

The reply said: “We consider that the forthcoming route change will ensure that the majority of our passengers who do not board or alight in Sighthill will benefit from a speedier journey to and from the city centre.”

Ms Ferguson however said more housing has been built in Sighthill and even more is planned.

She said: “This is the only bus in Sighthill except a small community transport bus that goes to the Tesco supermarket and the Royal Infirmary, but it stops at half two in the afternoon.

The redevelopment plans for the area include a bus turning circle but there will be no bus.

Re-regulation of the bus industry is the solution to ensure profit is not the only consideration in running services.”

Last month the Evening Times reported how residents in Possilpark were outraged at plans to cut the M3 bus through Westercommon to an hourly service, fearing it would eventually be cut altogether.

A First Glasgow spokesman, said: “Over recent years Sighthill has seen significant depopulation which has consequently had an impact on the demand for bus services. What housing remains, is largely situated next to the Springburn Expressway where customers already benefit from up to 18 buses an hour to the City Centre. Most Sighthill residents currently choose to walk to the stop on the Expressway to take advantage of the high frequency.

“We have therefore, taken the decision to also route service 10 direct via the Springburn Expressway. This also means the vast majority of passengers, who board Service 10 from north of Sighthill will enjoy a more direct and faster journey to the City.

“We are aware of proposed redevelopment plans for the area which in the short term includes a plan to close the road through the estate. This means it would not have been feasible to operate service 10 via the estate during this period. However, we will keep our services closely under review as the redevelopment progresses.”

Author: Damian Radcliffe

I’ve been writing about community journalism and hyperlocal media in the UK since 2009. At that time it was seen as a rather niche topic and something of a hobby-horse, but that perception is gradually changing.

Audience research from Ofcom has consistently shown the emerging importance of this sector and its ability to give communities a voice whilst also engaging in traditional journalistic pursuits such as reporting on local events, running campaigns and holding authority to account.

Opportunities in this emerging space abound, and as a result in the past few years we’ve seen investment in this arena from Nesta, Innovate UK (the body formerly known as the Technology Strategy Board) and the Carnegie UK Trust, as well as extensive academic research from Cardiff, Birmingham City and Westminster Universities.

These efforts have accompanied by support for practitioners from the Centre for Community Journalism (C4CJ) at Cardiff University and Talk About Local, alongside wider moves from the BBC and others (although in the commercial space often on a more piecemeal basis) to work more closely with this sector.

Taking Stock

Many of these developments are very recent, giving us a newfound understanding about the state of hyperlocal media in the UK.

In particular, detailed studies by academics have given us hard numbers about the output of the sector, whilst specialist industry insights commissioned by Nesta have dug deep into previously unchartered territories such as audience needs and local advertising markets.

These individual studies have all added considerably to our knowledge base, but often their findings sit in silos.

So it was against this backdrop that Cardiff University and Nesta commissioned a new report which provides a synthesis of everything we’ve learned about the sector in the last three and a half years.

5 key facts

Among the findings that we have now, recent research has shown us that:

1.            There are more than 400 active hyperlocal websites in the UK, compared with 1,045 local papers.

2.            48 per cent of site owners have journalistic training or experience working in the mainstream media.

3.            Although most of these local news sites are self-funded, 13 per cent of hyperlocal websites generate more than £500 per month, and there is a growing cohort of practitioners who are “professionalising” the sector by looking to do this as a full-time occupation.

4.            72 per cent of hyperlocal publishers have joined in or supported a local campaign in the last two years. 42 per cent have started their own campaigns, and nearly half of the UK’s online hyperlocal publishers engage in some form of investigative reporting.

5.            Consumption of hyperlocal content is on the rise. Ofcom reported last year that one in five say that online is their most important local news medium; and that one in ten use local community websites or apps at least weekly (up from 7% in 2013). Functional information about community events, services, local weather and traffic, are the information genres most valued by audiences.

Moving forward

At a time when many traditional local media channels remain under pressure, the civic, public and journalistic value provided by hyperlocal outlets is more important than ever. That’s why this report also outlines a series of recommendations to further grow and embed community journalism in the UK.

Many of these conclusions were touched on in my 2012 landscape report about this sector; which perhaps reflects the fact that progress in this space has been slower than I anticipated. Many of the issues I flagged as early as 2009 – in terms of sustainability, discoverability and recognition – remain.

Yet we now have an evidence base which should act as a catalyst to encourage industry and policy makers to change their perceptions and approach towards this sector. Small changes could potentially make a big difference.

Our new report includes 30 specific – and realistic – recommendations, including:

1.            Offering hyperlocal publishers the opportunity to sell credited content to the BBC

2.            Ensuring hyperlocal publishers are considered as suppliers for statutory notices (which amount to £45 – £50 million advertising spend a year) and local health campaigns

3.            Encouraging large technology companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter to support community news providers by making their content more discoverable

4.            Calling on the NUJ to provide accreditation and recognition to publishers

5.            Urgent clarification from politicians and regulators on the new press regulation regime and its potential impact on community news providers

These potential remedies, which include both financial and non-financial support, can all contribute to growing and sustaining this sector. Coupled with further on-going research into the hyperlocal industry, the foundations for the next stage in this sector’s evolution are firmly in place.

Author: SCA

Community Learning Exchange – Guidance notes for potential applicants

How will it operate?

The exchange will operate through the networks that comprise the membership of Scottish Community Alliance.  Each participating network will identify a designated member of staff with responsibility for promoting the Exchange to their membership, facilitating visits and liaising with the Exchange Coordinator who will be based with Scottish Community Alliance. Groups will apply to the Exchange through their network’s designated member of staff. Upon receipt of a valid application, the Exchange Coordinator will authorise payment of the grant to the group in question and within the stipulated period, ensure that receipts and monitoring requirements are complied with.

Who can access the Exchange?

The Exchange will be open to any constituted community group that is either a member of an SCA member network or has been vouched for by a designated member of staff of a network as an appropriate applicant to the Exchange.

What will the Exchange fund?

1.            Community to community visits. The Exchange will cover 100% of the costs of a visit by members of one community to another community project up to a limit of £750. In exceptional circumstances (where travel distances are greater or certain aspects of the visit are particularly expensive) this limit can be increased at the discretion of the Exchange Coordinator. Study visits to locations out with Scotland, but within the United Kingdom, can be considered where a project relates to a new or innovative concept and where a similar project does not exist in Scotland.

The following rates will apply:

Mileage at 40p per mile – or the cheapest/most convenient form of public transport

Accommodation costs up to £70 per person per night B& B

Subsistence up to £25 per person per day (no alcohol)

Host’s fee – £300 per day 

2.            Multiple community visits. Each visiting community will apply to the exchange separately. For the hosts of these multiple visits, the work and the associated cost involved are anticipated to be significantly higher. The host’s fee for these events will be £500.

What is the role of the Exchange Coordinator?

i.              To be responsible for the day to administration of the Exchange (allocation of grants, ensuring receipts and received monitoring reports)

ii.             To increase the number of networks who access the Exchange. In the past, a relatively few networks have used the Exchange extensively. The reasons for this are a combination of internal capacity and awareness of the benefits that can be derived.

iii.            To identify sites/communities which are likely to be of interest to a number of groups from across the sector and facilitate these ‘multiple visits’ by promoting them through each of the networks.

Application Process

1.            Fill in application form.

2.            The completed application form should then be sent by the applicant to whichever network the group is applying through, so that the application can be vouched for.

3.            Once it is signed off by the network, the completed application is returned to Scottish Community Alliance for a decison.

4.            If approved, a letter of grant offer and declaration form is sent to the community group.

5.            Once the signed declaration form, agreeing to the terms and conditions, is returned to SCA, the funds will be released.

6.            A monitoring form will be sent out for completion within one month of the visit taking place.

Author: SCA

An examination of the characteristics of strong and independent communities shows that they possess the ability to unite – and `hold together` – usually around some local organisation which they own. For some reason – in certain areas – the local community sector, the fragmented array of small voluntary groups, invest authority in a local umbrella vehicle to champion their collective interests. There are no examples of sustained community empowerment without some such locally embedded organisation, although in some areas this leadership role is achieved by two or more groups acting together. In theory structures like the Scottish `Community Planning Partnerships` could strengthen communities by linking them to decision making – but experience has shown that, without reference to some independent local organisation, community representatives are too isolated to be effective.

Community empowerment policy in England is led jointly by the Office of the Third Sector (The Cabinet Office) and the Dept. of Communities and Local Government (DCLG). They have both endorsed the importance of community led vehicles like development trusts for building strong and independent communities. They have jointly adopted the term `Community Anchor Organisation` (CAO) as a generic category for such vehicles – to give new emphasis to their significance.

Since 2009, when Scottish Government and COSLA jointly launched the Scottish Community Empowerment Action Plan, the concept of community anchors and the key role that they play in building local resilience, in the design and delivery of local services and in the field of locally led regeneration has become increasingly embedded across Scottish Government policy. Now, with the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, community anchor organisations are widely acknowledged as being pivotal to the community empowerment process.  It is therefore important to be absolutley clear what a community anchor organisation is.

Anchor definition

The first use of the term Anchor Organisation was in the government report Firm Foundations, which was published by the Home Office in 2004 when David Blunkett was Home Secretary. This radical document is the government’s official framework for community capacity building and it states: “We are calling them `community anchor organisations` because of the solid foundation they give to a wide variety of self help and capacity building activities in local communities and because of their roots within their communities.” In 2005, the Home Office funded the Community Alliance to develop the `Anchor` concept and to promote the model around England. The Community Alliance website carries information, historical and current.

In June this year (2007) the Dept. of Communities and Local Government published a draft of its Third Sector Strategy in which CAOs feature prominently. The Strategy refers to the `Firm Foundations` origin of the term `Anchors` but also offers a carefully developed definition of what it is intended to signify.

“Working with the Office of the Third Sector, we are exploring the increasing potential of approaches involving `community anchor` organisations. These are independent community led organisations with multi-purpose functions, which provide a focal point for local communities and community organisations, and for community services. They often own and manage community assets, and support small community organisations to reach out across the community.”

A Scottish Charity Award winner is celebrating once more after being awarded over half a million pounds to fund its latest project.

Beith Community Development Trust (BCDT) received £512,000 from the Scottish Land Fund, to turn a former residential school into a community hub.

BCDT, which won the Celebrating Communities award at the 2015 Scottish Charity Awards, will use the cash to buy the 5.24 hectare Geilsland House and School Campus in the North Ayrshire town.

It plans to transform the site in a bid to boost the local economy by creating a number of business incubator units and training centre as well as providing accommodation.

Jane Lamont, development manager at BCDT, said: “Geilsland Campus is a beautiful and important community asset not only for Beith but also North Ayrshire.

We are genuinely thrilled about the scope and opportunities that will now become a reality

“To own it as a community is beyond what we once thought was possible.

“We are genuinely thrilled about the scope and opportunities that will now become a reality.

“It’s been an empowering process for the whole community.”

The Scottish Land Fund is an awards programme funded by the Scottish Government and delivered in partnership with by the Big Lottery Fund and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

Its purpose is to help rural communities buy and manage local land and assets.

Six other community groups have also been awarded funding in the latest round of awards.

These include an award of £224,000 for Glengarry Community Woodlands, which will be used to bring 30 hectares of woodland in Inverness-shire into community ownership; to an award of £28,200 for Stratherrick and Foyers Community Trust to buy a patch of land within Lower Foyers to create a village green.

Scottish Land Fund Committee Chair, John Watt, said: “From a dynamic forestry buyout in Aberdeenshire to the creation of a valuable tourist attraction in Scourie, these awards will help to deliver social, environmental and economic benefits for generations to come.

“Each of today’s seven successful groups has worked hard to get to this point and I wish them all every success as they take forward their innovative plans.”

Minister for land reform, Aileen McLeod, added: “These projects, together with the wider Scottish Government work on land reform, through both the Community Empowerment Act, and the land reform bill, will support the Scottish Government aim of bringing more land into community ownership by 2020.

“I am looking forward to watching these communities thrive as they develop the land on which they live and work to realise their goals and ambitions.”

Author: Deborah Roberts and Annie McKee, The James Hutton Institute

Exploring barriers to community land-based activities

For a copy of the full report click here 

Executive Summary

This report presents the findings of a Scottish Government-funded project looking at the land ownership barriers to community land-based activities.

There are numerous different community activities which require access to land and each community will have its own particular priorities. Each type of activity will, in turn, require different property rights. While the land reform debate has to date been dominated by the advantages and disadvantages of (outright) community land ownership, this report considers barriers associated with the distribution of all types of property rights and responsibilities between land owners and communities.

Aim of project

To develop a classification scheme of barriers to community land-based activities and to use this scheme to examine the nature and significance of each type of barrier for different:

• types of community activities (e.g. affordable housing schemes, cycle paths, renewable energy schemes, community gardens),

• types of land owners (public versus private; passive versus active), and

• geographical contexts (e.g. urban versus rural areas).

Where possible, the report also highlights the types of strategies that have been used to resolve conflicts between land owners and communities when they arise.

Research approach

Research was conducted in two stages. The first stage was a desk-based literature review including a review of the range of community land based activities that are typically proposed by community groups. Based on this, a draft classification scheme of ownership barriers to community activities was developed.

Stage 2 tested the robustness of the classification scheme and, where appropriate, amended its categories based on interviews with key informants from a range of organisations associated with community land activities. The interviews provided a large number of case studies from which the nature and significance of different types of barriers in specific contexts could be assessed.

The classification scheme:

The classification scheme splits land ownership barriers to community activities into four sets relating to: the nature of the land market; the strategies and decisions of land owners; (external) constraints on communities; and finally (internal) community characteristics and decision making. Some are thus barriers to the supply of land (from land owners) others are barriers on the demand for land (by communities). An alternative perspective is that some barriers are structural in nature, others behavioural. Table 2 in section 4 of the report provides a summary of the classification scheme.

The research confirmed the existence and importance of all four types of barriers. Often more than one barrier was found to constrain community activities from being developed. As a result, it often takes considerable time for a community to secure the required land rights. This in itself represents a barrier in so far as it increases the probability of the development failing at some point in the development process through either a loss of community momentum or the increased likelihood of an alternative use or user being found in the interim period.

Differences between community activities

Some barriers were found to be particularly significant for certain community land based activities. For example, multiple ownership is a particular problem for footpaths or cycle paths in rural areas while gaining sufficient community funding was found to be a particular problem for community housing developments. A reoccurring issue in the case studies related to planning. In particular, while not a direct barrier, extant planning permission can significantly increase the value of a property to the landlord and can place it out of the reach of funding available to the community regardless of the intended activity.

Differences between rural and urban areas

Within as well as across urban and rural areas, the significance of barriers varies as a result of patterns of land use and land tenure, culture and the attitudes of key stakeholders. Having said this, there were a number of specific barriers that were considered to be more of a problem in urban areas than rural areas regardless of type of proposed activity. These included barriers associated with land owner identification, divided ownership rights (securities and real burdens), multiple ownership, constraints associated with planning and higher community liabilities (associated with higher use and potential vandalism etc.). It was also suggested that reaching acceptable terms may be more problematic in an urban context as a result of higher land values, greater competition for land use and a narrower range of alternative sites on which communities can site their activities than in rural areas. Finally it was suggested that urban communities may be more likely to suffer from a lack of capacity although this was noted as a potential issue for some rural areas as well.

Differences between types of land owners

Apart from differences between public and private landowners associated with the regulatory and funding framework, there was limited evidence that certain barriers were associated with certain land owner types. 5

There was some suggestion that, compared to public sector or charities, private landowners can be easier to deal with as they have a tendency for more direct decision making. However, the key informants also highlighted that negotiations with private landowners can be unpredictable and with a higher level of risk, due to potential disagreement, trust and partnership issues. The role of advisors to private landowners was also noted as significant.

Scale of landownership was also identified by some interviewees as a factor which influences the likelihood of landowners agreeing to sell or lease land to community groups however the pattern was unclear and no overall trend was identified. For example, some argued that individual private owners of small landholdings are more cautious in engaging with community land-based activities. A key issue is that whilst in many cases there may be a possibility of finding alternative land for the community activity, a lack of engagement by a single large scale land owner in a locality can lead to disproportionate impacts.

There were clearer messages in relation to differences in the barriers associated with public and private landowners. The former tended to be viewed as more risk averse yet supportive of community initiatives and also progressive in terms of developing lease agreements.

Resolution mechanisms

The existence of barriers to community land-based activities is a potential justification for government intervention. Each category of barrier identified in the classification scheme arises from a different source and thus may require a different resolution mechanism.

Many of the structural barriers facing communities could in theory be overcome by changes in existing funding regulations and/or improvements in advisory services. Similarly, changes in planning regulations could potentially help to overcome any unintentional impacts of planning on land values or behaviour. Elements of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 were expected by interviewees to be helpful in addressing several of the issues identified in relation to community capacity-related barriers, especially in urban areas.

More generally, the case studies highlighted several different resolution strategies which had been used to overcome land ownership barriers to community activities. On some occasions this involved helping communities find alternative locations for their activities. In other cases external mediation and consultation processes had been effective in overcoming problems between particular landowners and communities, allowing activities to proceed. The classification scheme described in this report provides a basis for better understanding some of the barriers that can occur in developing community land-based activities and thus effective ways of resolving issues should they arise.

Author: Andy Ricketts, Third Sector Magazine

The National Coalition for Independent Action says the NCVO and Acevo have been ‘complicit and supine’ in their response to pressures from the state and the private sector

The National Coalition for Independent Action has criticised major voluntary sector umbrella bodies for failing to stand up to cuts that affect voluntary groups and the people they serve.

A report published today by the NCIA, a group of individuals and organisations that promote the principles of independent voluntary action, is the final in a series of 17 reports that examine the major issues affecting voluntary action in the UK.

Fight or Flight: Voluntary Services in 2015, says that major voluntary sector umbrella bodies, in particular the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the chief executives body Acevo, have responded to pressures from the state and the private sector in “complicit and supine ways”.

“The inquiry found that so-called national leadership bodies, especially but not exclusively the NCVO and Acevo, have failed to stimulate, let alone organise, any opposition to the discriminatory and disproportionate slashing of services for poor people and disadvantaged communities, and direct cuts to these people’s living standards, especially through the benefits system,” the report says.

“Patchy responses aimed at specific issues and impacts have been almost universally concerned with cuts to voluntary sector groups, rather than the draconian effects on their users and beneficiaries.

“Ironically, the only area in which the national infrastructure bodies have taken a strong public line is the lobbying act – in defence of a freedom they have scarcely used.”

The report says that the NCIA has been warning since 2006 of “the incremental erosion of the principles and practice of independent voluntary action and the emasculation of its role in civil society”.

It says: “Our current inquiry has confirmed how these warnings were justified. The picture our research paints is deeply troubling and there is evidence that many people involved with voluntary sector groups are profoundly unhappy with what has happened to the domain that they occupy, but feel confused or powerless about how to regain the initiative.”

The report says that the environment for most voluntary services, in particular local groups, is “difficult, hostile and getting worse for the people they exist to serve”.

It says there is a growing gap between large and smaller charities because the larger ones are better placed to compete for increasingly big government contracts but are also more successful in attracting private donations and income from commercial sources.

“Many larger charities, including large housing associations, have moved into service provision in local areas in direct competition with often long-established small or medium-sized voluntary groups,” it says. “On the part of some of these national charities there is evidence of aggressive competitive and predatory behaviour. Though this is not new, inquiry evidence indicates that it is now a more common characteristic of large charities.”

The report says that small and medium-sized groups have suffered the most from reduced resources and increased pressure on local services.

These organisations, the report says, face increasing competition from three kinds of rival organisations: “Private sector companies that have identified new opportunities for profit; new entrepreneurs badged as non-profit but keenly competitive in their approach to contracting and driven by business values; and some of the larger charities.”

A spokesman for the NCVO said: “NCIA’s stated aim is to promote a ‘radical political view’ of voluntary action. Our aim is to support and represent voluntary organisations so they can make the biggest difference to the causes they work for.”