Farming in the Uplands - ARCHIVE: Defra

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