Farming in the Uplands - ARCHIVE: Defra

Ev 88 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
fine grained and tailored arrangements with an emphasis on collaborative working. The National Park
Authorities have demonstrated their capacity for grass roots delivery and could provide a valuable service
in this respect.
October 2010
Supplementary written evidence from English National Park Authorities Association
Thank you for your letter requesting further information following the presentation of oral evidence to
the Select Committee on 10 November 2010. I have set out our response with each of your questions and
have also included some additional evidence on local needs aVordable housing in National Parks as this was
an item that the Select Committee asked about at the hearings.
1. The press has reported that the Government is considering selling oV National Nature Reserves. Will this
aVect land within National Parks, and what impact might this have on hill farmers?
The first point to make is that not all National Nature Reserves (NNRs) are owned by Natural England.
In the case of Exmoor National Park, for example, one NNR is owned by the National Trust and the two
others by Exmoor National Park Authority, while in the North York Moors National Park, one is owned
privately and another by Scarborough Borough Council. None of these will be aVected by any sale.
Of those NNRs that are owned by Natural England, it is diYcult to generalise about the impact of any
sale or disposal as a lot will depend on the current arrangements for managing these areas and the eventual
owner/tenant of the land. However, the example of Ingleborough NNR in Yorkshire Dales National Park
suggests that in some cases hill farmers might benefit.
Ingleborough NNR covers 1,014 ha and has five or six graziers. At the current time, some of the graziers
on the NNR have insuYcient term of tenancy to enable them to enter Environmental Stewardship (ES). This
is because land owned by Government departments, executive agencies and NDPBs is ineligible for ES
unless the grazier has suYcient tenure for the term of the agreement. In addition, the grazier is ineligible if
the work required as part of the ES agreement is already required as part of the tenancy with the public body.
This has become a more significant issue since the launch of UELS to replace HFA as it means that graziers
on the NNR cannot claim UELS when they used to be able to claim HFA. Therefore, transfer of the NNR
to another owner, who is not a public body, may have benefits to the graziers, unless that owner chooses to
claim the ES payments themselves, or decides to farm the land themselves rather than the current graziers.
2. You described a Lake District tourist tax scheme—could you provide more detail on this and the other
voluntary schemes used in other Parks?
Examples of a number of tourism contribution schemes that operate in National Parks are set out in
Appendix 1. These are all voluntary contribution schemes and not tax schemes. There are no powers that
would allow any “tourism tax” to be levied and, in eVect, visitors to National Parks, other upland areas and
the wider countryside already contribute to the management of these areas through general taxation.
In the majority of cases the experience of running visitor contribution programmes is that they do serve
to raise public awareness of conservation objectives but do not provide substantial financial returns when
account is taken of the costs of running the schemes.
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or part, in any form before
00.01am GMT Wednesday 16 February 2011
3. Your evidence expressed a preference to develop a new approach to CAP payments, rather than broadening
income foregone. What specific ideas do you have for this, bearing in mind the WTO regulations on payments
under environmental programmes?
Firstly, we do feel that there will continue to be the need to include the consideration of income forgone
when asking for some management options. If the payment oVered does not make business sense then
farmers will not adopt them unless the payments recognise that cost. However, in other cases we believe that
greater consideration needs to be given to an incentive scheme that recognises public benefits or services
delivered.
Examples might include payments from water companies to improve resource protection where there is
an economic “driver” for environmental management. However, that will not apply everywhere and we do
recognise the complexity of placing a financial value on some of the less tangible benefits.
This need not necessarily be insurmountable. We understand that the EU regulations already allow for
the cost of delivery to be included in payment calculations and we believe that more use could be made of
this provision. We haven’t seen the Environmental Stewardship (ES) payment calculations but assume that
the approach is already incorporated in some of the ES measures. For example, if a feature is valued, such
as a drystone wall, it is acknowledged that there is a cost for its maintenance. The payment reflects that cost
and is a positive reward for the farmer’s eVort. It also incorporates the concept of reward for results rather
than following prescriptions, which we believe we could apply in other circumstances. For example, farmers
might receive a reward based on the condition of SSSI habitat that they manage with a higher payment for
more favourable condition.