A REPORT, The Knowledge Based Economy has just hit my desk and it links its meessage to rural Britain.

The report is the result of Eurocrats deciding that: "Europe will become the most competetive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and social cohesion." So there; now we know!

A knowledge-based economy is one where graduates make up at least 25pc of the workforce, perpetuating the rather depressing idea that, unless you have a degree, you really are not that important. We all know that is wrong in many of our own areas where graduates are two a penny, yet skills and straight workpower are like hens' teeth. Witness the huge labour force from Eastern Europe and beyond now working among us.

Naturally, in line with the policy of our administrators, the report was preceded by a consultants' survey, by graduates of course, which tells us that only 80 local authorities are on top of the situation; 240 are average and 80 have only a smattering of KBE score points.

This is a nationwide phenomenon which is growing in rural communities as firms rich in graduates set up in suburban areas and beyond, doing business with urban firms. This allows them to avoid the problems of the inner city and take advantage of cheaper property, traffic-free commuting and a quality environment, and has the effect of gradually putting pressure on local folks' housing, clogging up country roads which serve as commercial arteries for agriculture, and moving ever onward towards suburbanisation.

The report has a map shaded to illustrate the success and failure of local authorities. All is well in the eyes of the architects of the KBE plan, for it shows that growth far exceeds decline, but to me it represents a crumbling countryside.

There are 408 authorities listed, with only Alnwick and Morpeth from the North in the top 20. However in the bottom 20 we have five including, interestingly, Sedgefield, in 398th place. I have to wonder whether perhaps our leader knows something that hasn't got through to his underlings.

The report tells us that the human capital base (HCB! ) has to be rethought and empowered if the KBE philosophy is to work, so another table illustrates the density of local skills/qualifications. None of our local authorities appears in the top 20, but it is some comfort to see we have four in the bottom 20. Am I a cynic or am I accurate in my forecast that the short-termism of politicians is bringing an end to rural Britain?

We all see the rising property market, the crowded country roads in the build-up to urban traffic jams and the adverse effect this is having on public services and the labour market, yet the report calls for more new business, training, entrepreneurship and innovation in traditional local businesses. This leads on to broadband and private/public partnerships in order to promote KBEs.

Why, oh why, can these people not realise that agriculture, forestry, sport, tourism and basic diversification do not rest easily with the chaos caused by this ridiculous policy?

As I found out last week, the rural development agencies, the embryonic regional governments, are really concerned about sustainable rural development so I asked them to explain the meaning of the word. It is: "Development meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs."

I argued that it was the profitability of basic rural enterprise that made these areas sustainable, but profit is not a word that goes down well with these folk, they prefer "a fair return".

There is a checklist for sustainability, to which farmers and others can submit their business. Its three sections, economic, environment and social - each with too many sub-divisions to mention - reflect the misunderstanding that dominates the thinking of the architects of our futures - or is it perhaps a mixture of ignorance and arrogance?

I am very sceptical of KBEs and sustainability Government-style, which you may understand when I explain two other pieces of information that hit the doormat this week.

First I got news that the well known urbanite and reptile fancier Ken Livingstone had set up London Food - wait for it - to look at ways of making the capital's food supplies more sustainable. What is his worry? He has Smithfield doing the meat, Covent Garden the fruit and veg and Billingsgate the fish, to say nothing of the country's biggest farmers' market in the restored Borough Building.

He has joined in the anti-hunting cause, despite having the most worrying fox population in the country bar Bristol, and has obviously now got wind of the wind-down of UK meat, fruit, veg and fish production.

Secondly, I now know that the "ecological footprint" of Ken's city is 120 times the size of his metro-boundary. In plain English, to keep his people fed, our Ken requires 1,500sq km to house them on, with another 20m sq kms from which to draw food and dump waste.

Now to the thought-provoking foresight: in China's 18 largest cities all the vegetable requirements and half the meat come from within the urban area. Even in the US, with 4.7 hectares per head of population, 30pc of ag-output is from urban land. It is apparently the word in Global Worry Centres that urban areas, despite their faults, may be a solution to the problems of population, food supply, famine and the whole big problem of relentless growth.

So we all sit here while experts produce reports, consultants survey and politicians come up with policies based on the wrong information, while anyone in rural life knows only too well that overdevelopment is ruining the rurality on which tourism depends and the basic landscape and seascape conservators are being put out of business.

KBEs and their like are not solutions. The chaos in Parliament recently was a desperate attempt to succeeed where democracy has failed and where short-termism has taken over, based on reports using biased opinion stated as fact. The countryside does know about sustainability if left to itself . Believe that or not