Farming in the Uplands - ARCHIVE: Defra

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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.
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 89 4. How does the implementation of UELS aVect National Parks Authorities’ ability to fulfil their statutory objective to conserve and enhance the environment? We consider that the UELS is valuable in assisting with our ability to deliver the conservation purpose of National Park designation. It usefully extends the ELS options and helps to protect valuable features and habitats. It is also of value in supporting the retention of cattle grazing in the hills. However, there is still a “gap” between the provisions available in the combined ELS and UELS compared to those available in Higher Level Stewardship (HLS). Currently, ELS and UELS do not make provision for capital grants for specific works or more detailed habitat management where there is existing environmental value but not suYcient to enable a farmer to enter into a full Higher Level Stewardship agreement. An example is provided by those farms on Exmoor that used to participate in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) scheme and who can make the transition to ELS and UELS but are unlikely to be able to join HLS. While in the ESA there were capital grants available for environmental management and landscape management schemes such as hedge restoration that will not be fundable at the same scale under ES. In addition, in many National Parks, National Park Authority oYcers are directly involved in delivering advice to potential UELS applicants (on behalf of Natural England), which provides the opportunity to raise awareness of the value of environmental assets that the farm contains and to signpost farmers to other schemes and opportunities. 5. Do you think there is a case for rationalising public support to fewer uplands farmers in the most valued areas, given budgetary constraints? — What criteria could be used to define these areas? We are of the view that there is a case for rationalising support in other parts of the country so that support was concentrated on upland farmers rather than seeking to support fewer upland farmers. Uplands in general, and National Parks in particular, have the highest value in terms of the combination of semi-natural habitats; historic environment; landscape and public access/visitors, so providing maximum value for money for the taxpayer. To sustain the public benefits that uplands provide requires an ability to support the wider farming economy and community across whole upland areas. For example, the more productive farmland alongside the semi-natural moor and heathland habitats together provides the variety and sense of a working and living landscapes that visitors most appreciate. The current Higher Level Stewardship schemes already provide an element of targeting and prioritisation and already means that some upland farms receive considerably more financial support than others. All farms in the uplands are subject to similar constraints on productivity and diversification opportunities compared to lowland farms, and sustaining farming communities in upland areas will continue to require financial support that recognises these constraints. EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: Not to be published in full, or part, in any form before 00.01am GMT Wednesday 16 February 2011 6. Could you provide further evidence to support your assertion that headage payments led to overgrazing? Please see Appendix 2. Local needs aVordable housing During the oral evidence we received a number of questions regarding planning in National Parks and particularly the provision of aVordable housing to help meet local need. All National Park Authorities give a high priority to enabling local needs housing provision within their planning policies. National Park Authorities have responded to indicate the numbers of local needs houses approved in their respective National Parks over the past four years as follows: National Park Number of aVordable/local needs homes receiving planning consent from 2006–10 Exmoor 62 since 1 January 2006 plus 15 awaiting completion of Section 106 agreements Lake District 227 since April 2005 plus 15 awaiting Section 106 agreements North York Moors 98 since April 2005 Northumberland 1 since March 2009 plus 3 awaiting Section 106 agreements Yorkshire Dales 11 recent permissions plus 54 completions of homes approved before 2006
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 147: 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?