Farming in the Uplands - ARCHIVE: Defra

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Ev 86 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence — Strategic Partnership between Defra, the Association of River Trusts and three water companies to test measures for tackling diVuse pollution from agriculture and assess what role there is for innovative approaches like paid ecosystem services to meet the aims of the Water Framework Directive: also to report March 2011. — UK Water Industry Research/Water Research Council—water industry led project—part Defra funded, Report summer 2011 overview of the catchment management initiatives being undertaken by water companies during AMP5 Asset Management Programme which runs from 2010–15; a summary of the environmental drivers for action and the measures being implemented; an analysis of the views of the financial, environmental and public health regulators; and, a summary of learning points from catchment management initiatives to date. An evaluation framework for measuring the eVectiveness and quantifying the benefits of catchment management initiatives. — Several projects funded through the Defra Farming and Food Science Sustainable Water Management Programme are investigating ways of minimising impacts of UK agriculture on water quality. This includes the Demonstration Test Catchments project—which has been established on three river catchments to test measures to reduce diVuse water pollution and to understand the scale of changes needed to achieve improvements in water quality. — The National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) is already demonstrating the importance of the uplands for a variety of ecosystem services, water provision and purification being just two. This analysis will be completed in the Spring of 2011. Whether Ofwat’s system of reviewing water prices could be reformed to allow more investment in upstream measures We are currently considering whether there are practical and unnecessary barriers to economically justifiable investment in upstream measures as part of the current review of Ofwat, and in developing policy for the Natural Environment White Paper and Water White Paper. Ultimately though, it will be for Ofwat as the independent economic regulator to decide how to run its price review process. December 2010 Written evidence submitted by the English National Parks Authorities Association 1. National Parks contain some of the most beautiful and remote landscapes to be found in England. Most of these diverse areas spanning both uplands and lowlands include unimproved grassland, moorland, heath and bog that depend on livestock grazing for long-term conservation management. A decline in sympathetic livestock grazing will directly aVect the future of landscape quality and biodiversity throughout the National Parks, the farming communities that it supports, and the cultural and historical heritage that it forms part of and helps to preserve. EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: Not to be published in full, or part, in any form before 00.01am GMT Wednesday 16 February 2011 2. National Park Authorities therefore recognise that in order to maintain and enhance the special qualities of the National Parks for all to enjoy the financial viability of key livestock farming systems must be secured and awareness must be raised of the valuable contribution that is made by cattle, sheep and pony grazing. This submission considers the essential contribution made by livestock farming in England’s upland National Parks. England’s National Parks 3. Our National Parks are a truly national treasure. The 10 National Parks in England are living landscapes peopled by farmers, others who manage the land and strong rural communities. Each of the National Parks has a National Park Authority. These are independent bodies funded by central Government and have the following two purposes: — to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of National Parks; and — to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of National Parks by the public. 4. In carrying out these purposes, they also have a duty to seek to foster the economic and social wellbeing of local communities within the National Park. National Park Authorities work with partners to deliver these aims simultaneously in an integrated manner.
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 87 Responses to Recommendations in CRC Report “High Ground, High Potential” 5. Comment is made on the CRC recommendations that relate to the future of upland farming. 6. CRC Recommendation 4: ENPAA strongly supports the proposal to review the current approach to funding in the uplands with a greater emphasis on rewarding farmers for managing national assets (CRC 4.1). Pilot projects into the delivery of “ecosystems services” in the Lake District, Exmoor and Dartmoor National Parks is being undertaken by Natural England in partnership with National Park Authorities and, we believe, should inform the proposed review. 7. ENPAA strongly supports broadening the concept of income foregone but would prefer recognition, reward, and development of a new approach to payments (CRC 4.2). EU regulations already allow for “cost of delivery” to be taken into account and these provisions should be utilised to a greater extent. 8. National Park Authorities are well placed to take a bigger role as a delivery body in RDPE and Leader (Axis 4) (CRC 4.4). In the South West, for example, the Regional Development Agency has supported the establishment of hill farm projects on Dartmoor and Exmoor National Parks and Bodmin Moor to help increase uptake in RDPE in the uplands. National Park Authorities have developed considerable expertise in delivering eVective and flexible grant funding regimes though the Sustainable Development Fund (SDF) programmes that achieve, social, economic and environmental outcomes. Moreover we see scope to simplify the administration for implementation of LEADER, with an enhanced role for locally based National Park Authorities. 9. National Park Authority experience is that, with the exception of Axis 2, uptake of RDPE opportunities within the uplands has been low. A variety of reasons exist for this including: — the relatively small scale of upland farm businesses means that the investment required and complex application process is perceived as a significant barrier. In the Peak District National Park a Live & Work Rural Programme has been established to support farm diversification schemes and rural business that were on too small a scale to access RDPE funding; — the lack of integration between axis 1 and 2 has meant that projects that do not deliver a clear financial outcome do not succeed even if they provide other positive outcomes. For example, a proposal for equipment purchase etc. to help moorland management in Exmoor National Park was not supported by RDPE even though it would have enabled more cost eVective delivery of environmental management objectives; — some relevant measures such as those for early retirements for farmers and encouraging new entrants to farming were excluded from the RDPE even though they are permissible within the EU regulation and are used in other parts of Europe. For example, a proposed farming and land management apprenticeship scheme in Northumberland National Park could not receive RDPE funding as the potential beneficiaries were not already employed in farming; and — the detailed prescriptions that are set out in the RDPE measures provide a major constraint on the projects that can be supported and impede the achievement of the axes objectives. 10. CRC Recommendation 5: ENPAA strongly supports this recommendation and the increased recognition of the wide variety of public benefits being delivered by the uplands. Restoration of functioning peatlands is being supported by a number of water companies including South West Water in Exmoor and Dartmoor. Proposals for market mechanisms for clean water are also emerging but are likely to take some time before coming into operation. We believe that this should be a key aspect of the Government’s forthcoming Water White Paper. We also strongly favour an approach that extends water quality and carbon management within the CAP. 11. CRC Recommendation 6: ENPAA supports recommendation 6 and particularly recommendations 6.1 and 6.2. There is concern in a number of National Parks that approaches to land management that may be appropriate in one region are not applicable in another. A series of national prescriptions such as those set out in Environmental Stewardship schemes provide a severe limitation on the ability to arrive at locally tailored, long term approaches to environmental management that fit in with a farming cycle and deliver biodiversity and other benefits. Natural England have recognised this issue and the consultation process that led to a series of options for Upland Entry Level Stewardship (UELS) that are relevant in the South West as well as in the North East was widely welcomed. EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: Not to be published in full, or part, in any form before 00.01am GMT Wednesday 16 February 2011 ANew Approach to Funding? 12. The current system of farm support is complex in terms of its structure. The take up of Axis 2 funding has been high but the delivery of the agrienvironment schemes is cumbersome. In eVect, there are three agrienvironment schemes plus Single Farm Payment each with their own application process. The other axes of the RDPE should be more accessible for upland farming businesses. LEADER has worked well at the grass roots but axes 1 and 3 have provided relatively little benefit. 13. The RDPE could be a real driver for integrated policy in the uplands but has not been delivered in a way that allows this. There is a need for RDPE delivery to be coordinated so that local needs and opportunities are addressed and delivery should be flexible enough to meet local circumstances. This means
Page 1 and 2:
House of Commons Environment, Food
Page 3 and 4:
House of Commons Environment, Food
Page 5 and 6:
Contents EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: No
Page 7 and 8:
Summary EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: Not
Page 9 and 10:
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: Not to be p
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
5 Upland communities EMBARGOED ADVA
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
6 Conclusion EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY
Page 49 and 50:
4: A new approach to funding EMBARG
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Witnesses EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: N
Page 61 and 62:
Oral evidence Environment, Food and
Page 63 and 64:
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Tom Blenkinsop Richard Drax George
Page 79 and 80:
walked they ain’t coming back, be
Page 81 and 82:
great, but there is the wider issue
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
to engage in a conversation with th
Page 95 and 96: Q161 George Eustice: One of the com
Page 97 and 98: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Page 113 and 114: Written evidence Environment, Food
Page 145: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Page 155 and 156: EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: Not to be p
show all

Farming in the Uplands - ARCHIVE: Defra

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?