Editorials Fifteen Criteria for Rejuvenating the Rural Economy
From Defining Rural Sustainability published by The Land Is Ours 1. Any new rural development project
should have a management plan which demonstrates how the site will contribute towards the occupiers' livelihoods, and how the objectives cited in items 2 to 14 below will be achieved. 2. The project should provide affordable
access to land and/or housing. 3. The project should provide public
access to the countryside. 4. The project should demonstrate how
it will be integrated into the local economy and community. 5. The project should demonstrate that
no activities pursued on the site shall cause undue nuisance. 6. The project should have a strategy for
the minimisation of motor vehicle use. 7. The development and any buildings
associated with it should be appropriately sited in relation to local landscape, natural resources and settlement patterns. 8. New buildings and dwellings should
not be visually intrusive and should be constructed from materials with low environmental impact, preferably from locally-sourced materials. 9. The project should be reversible,
insofar as new buildings can be easily dismantled and the land easily restored to its former condition. 10. The project should plan to minimise the
creation of waste and to reuse and recycle as much as possible on site. 11. The project should have a strategy for
energy conservation and the reduction, over time, of dependence on nonrenewable energy sources. 12. The project should aim over time for
the autonomous provision of water, energy and sewage disposal and should make no demands upon the existing infrastructure. 13. Agricultural, forestry and similar land-
based activities should be carried out according to sustainable principles. 14. The project should have strategies and
programmes for the ecological management of the site, including: (a) improvement of soil structure; (b) conservation or enhancement of semi-natural habitat; (c) efficient use and reuse of water; (d) planting of trees and hedges. 15. The project should show that
affordability and sustainability are secured, for example, by the involvement of a housing association, co-operative, trust or other social body.
An increase in people working sustainably on the land will help to boost other areas of the rural economy.
between the one and the other. Planning Policy Guidance 7: The Countryside boldly proclaims that "sustainable development is the cornerstone of both the Government's rural policies and its planning policies". But there is no guidance in PPG7 or in any other government document as to how sustainable developments in the countryside can be identified, encouraged, monitored and secured.
In order to fil l this policy vacuum, the Rural Planning Group of the land reform pressure group The Land Is Ours has recently published a report entitled Defining Rural Sustainability. The first part of this report outlines a set of 15 model criteria for assessing developments associated with sustainable land-based rural projects. These criteria cover social issues such as affordability and public access, the impact upon the local environment and wider environmental concerns such as energy use and transport (see the accompanying box for the full criteria).
The second part of the report provides three model local-plan policies which are designed to facilitate development on sustainably managed holdings without any radical departure from existing planning guidance. These policies are backed up by a number of model conditions and legal agreements which could be used to ensure that a sustainable development stays sustainable and which close up loopholes which might be exploited by speculative builders masquerading as sustainable developers.
Judging by the reaction to this document so far, the Rural Planning Group (now renamed Chapter Seven) is convinced that i t is only a matter of time before these criteria and policies, or something like them, become incorporated into a planning system which nearly everyone agrees is sorely in need of a new vision.
When they are fully incorporated, the repercussions wil l be considerable. Building land wil l become more accessible and cheaper for those wishing to work, full- or part-time, in a land-based rural economy. This wil l help to underwrite sustainable
farm and forestry holdings which might otherwise be marginal. People aiming to farm and build sustainably would therefore be able to pay somewhat over the odds for agricultural land and conventional farmers selling land would have an interest in seeking out buyers in the sustainable/lowimpact sector. Planners too would have an interest in seeing this sector expand since they would have considerably greater control over i t than they do at present over conventional farms.
The more people there are working upon the land, the more shops, pubs, workshops, offices, schools, clinics, churches and other facilities there will need to be to service them. Any substantial increase in the numbers of sustainably managed, labour-intensive agricultural units would have a knock-on effect on the rural economy. The more people there are working upon the land, the more shops, pubs, workshops, offices, schools, clinics, churches and other facilities there wil l need to be to service them; and i f a burgeoning sustainable sector of the agricultural economy establishes successful mechanisms for restraining the use of the private car, then public transport wil l become more viable. Within this context, the counter-urban middle-classes seeking a place in the country wil l no longer be so dependent upon commuting to the city for their income: there wil l be a place for them, too, in a thriving and balanced rural community.
Defining Rural Sustainability: 15 Criteria for Sustainable Developments in the Countryside together with Three Model Policies for Local Plans can be obtained by sending a cheque made out to "Chapter Seven", 20 St Michael's Road, Yeovil, Somerset, price £5 or £3 to low-waged people, including p&p. It is also available on The Land Is Ours website: www. Oneworld.org/tho. Low-Impact Development, by Simon Fairlie, published by Jon Carpenter, is also available from Chapter Seven, price £10.
The Ecologist, Vol. 29, No 4, July 1999 Cracking Down on Corporate Crime By Russell Mokhiber. 'Cracking down on crime', is the top priority of most governments. Billions are spent annually on tackling criminals, but of those billions, little if any is spent on bringing corporate criminals to justice. Although it is corporate crime which most fundamentally affects society, transnational corporations are allowed to get away with murder.
Only the most myopic of observers would deny the obvious: that large, undemocratic corporations are the dominant institutions of our time and are inflicting a kind of damage on society that individuals acting alone could not conceive of inflicting.
From the destruction of inner city rail transit (General Motors was convicted of this crime in the 1950s and paid a $5,000 fine) to unprosecuted and perhaps unprosecutable mass occupational homicide (125 workplace-related deaths an hour worldwide), pollution, corruption and the unconscionable tampering with life through genetic engineering - the list is endless.
Corporate crime: a child victim of Agent Orange.
And yet the dominant voices of society deny the evidence and proclaim the oppposite: that individual criminals inflict more damage on society than corporate criminals.
Charles Krauthammer, a Washington Post columnist and a corporate conservative has written, for instance, that "crime is generally an occupation of the poor." Richard Cohen, a Washington Post columnist and a corporate liberal believes that "young black males commit most of the crimes in Washington, D.C." James Glassman, another Washington Post columnist writes that the rich "don't commit the violent crimes that require billions to be spent on law enforcement."
And the American people, fed an unending stream of such garbage, are likely to agree.
Ask any American to name a crime and most likely he or she wil l say: burglary, robbery or theft. Most likely he or she wil l not say: corporate fraud, pollution, corporate homicide, price-fixing, or corruption of the government regulators.
Every year, the US Justice Department puts out a big fat book-length compilation of crimes statistics. It's called: "Crime in the United States". But by "Crime in the United States," the Justice Department means "Street Crime in the United States".
The Justice Department has no equivalent publication called "Corporate Crime in the United States". This despite the fact that there is an emerging consensus among corporate criminologists that corporate crime and violence inflict far more damage on society than all street crime combined.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) estimates, for example, that burglary and robbery - street crimes - cost the nation $3.8 billion a year. Compare this to the hundreds of billions of dollars stolen from Americans as a result of corporate and white-collar fraud.
Health care fraud alone costs Americans $100 billion to $400 billion a year. The savings and loan fraud - which former Attorney General, Dick Thornburgh, called "the biggest white collar swindle in history" - cost them anywhere from $300 billion to $500 billion. And then you have your lesser frauds: auto repair fraud, $40 billion a year securities fraud; $15 billion a year - and on down the list.
Recite this list of corporate frauds and people wil l immediately say to you: but you can't compare street crime and corporate crime - corporate crime is not violent crime.
But in fact, corporate crime is often violent crime.
The FBI estimates that 19,000 Americans are murdered every year by street criminals. Compare this with the 56,000 Americans who die every year at work or
The Ecologist, Vol. 29, No 4, July 1999