Farming in the Uplands - ARCHIVE: Defra

Ev 34 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
in between. There are so many issues with agrienvironment
that it is difficult to know where to start
in trying to make them more accessible, less
burdensome in terms of bureaucracy, cheaper to
deliver etc.
Chair: That is very helpful.
Q156 Amber Rudd: The CRC report suggested that
more of the available European funding should be
targeted on the uplands and “less perhaps in some
areas where it’s not being very wisely spent”. Do you
think there is a case for rationalising public support to
fewer farmers in the most valued areas?
Dr Stone: Can I circulate these diagrams?
Chair: We are running out of time.
Dr Stone: I understand, but basically, all it illustrates
is the breakdown of income for an average upland
farm in the south west of England and what the
foreseeable prospects are likely to be. What has been
said by other people who have given evidence here is
that the public funding support is a critical element
of farm income. These are areas that have particular
disadvantages in terms of developing farm income and
diversification and other sources of income, and these
are areas that deliver high levels of public benefit. We
would strongly argue that whatever the change in
agricultural funding, both single payment and agrienvironment,
there should be targeted support for
uplands.
Peter Barfoot: To expand on that, we have talked a
great deal about farming, and uplands are not just
about farming. The majority of the land is managed
by farming, although in my own national park a
significant proportion of the land is either woodland
or grouse moor. Grouse moor is not farming but is
very important to the economy; it brings in substantial
amounts of money and employment and, if it is
carried out sensibly and properly, it delivers a great
deal by way of environmental benefits, but they are
also rural communities. Our biggest single industry
is tourism.
Chair: We will come to that, if we may.
Q157 George Eustice: I wanted to talk about the
carbon and water markets, which we discussed with
both the NFU, the CLA and the Tenant Farmers
Association. I know that the national parks already
work with some of the water companies to try to find
ways to get income that can help farmers who adopt
a particular type of land management. Can you say a
little more about how those work and what the barriers
are to doing more of it? I know the TFA were very
sceptical about the value of it; CLA thought there was
potential, but still obstacles to it. Do you have a view
on that?
Dr Stone: I shall focus first on water because we have
a very close working relationship with South West
Water. They are actively funding to the tune of £3.5
million over five years peatland restoration projects in
Exmoor and Dartmoor National Parks. We are also
engaged with them and Natural England in doing
some research, working with farming communities
within a catchment on Wimbleball reservoir, which is
owned and managed by South West Water, to look at
how we can arrive at a sensible, practical set of
10 November 2010 Dr Nigel Stone and Peter Barfoot
measures that would enable South West Water to
reward those land managers for ensuring they do not
have pollution problems in that reservoir. They are
very keen to develop a practical approach to that.
There are examples in other parts of the world where
I understand farmers in catchments are rewarded for
the quality of water that that catchment delivers. One
of the complexities in this country is that often we
have very fragmented ownership and different land
management practices within the same catchment. I
do not suggest that it will be straightforward and easy.
Q158 George Eustice: What is the actual model for
doing it? Can you describe the model? Is it just a grant
to do restoration?
Dr Stone: No. The current work is that the vision of
South West Water, as I understand it, is to provide an
annual revenue payment to farmers in catchments
based on the quality of the water that that catchment
delivers. I do not know the detail of how they would
do that. I think they would say it is far more economic
for them to pay people to ensure there is delivery of
high-quality water than it is for them to put in
treatment afterwards and deal with the problems of
low-quality water. Therefore, they can make a
business case for it. Centrally, they need Ofwat
approval for it. They have Ofwat approval for the
peatland restoration, but they have not yet got
approval for the next step, which presumably will be
in the next round of Ofwat reviews.
Q159 George Eustice: Is there anything that
Government could do to remove obstacles or create
incentives for this to happen?
Dr Stone: Yes. It would be excellent if Government
would engage with the water companies and Ofwat in
terms of the form this might take.
Q160 George Eustice: I want to ask for your view
on the RDPE and how it should be administered. We
know that the NFU in particular were sceptical about
the LEPs taking on that role; indeed, the mood music
from the Department is that they will not do it; they
will probably administer it themselves. Do you have
a view about how best to handle this fund?
Dr Stone: We have quite a lot of views. To describe
it at the moment, I think there is a tendency to look at
the four axes within the programme almost as separate
entities, and that is not at all helpful when trying to
look at some kind of integrated delivery. It is very
difficult for small upland farmers without the capacity
to engage in complex and expensive bidding processes
to access these funds. To be fair to the South West
RDA, they supported three hill farm projects in that
area, one on Bodmin, one on Exmoor and one on
Dartmoor, to work with the farming community and
facilitate access particularly to axes 1 and 3, but we
see real benefits in axis 4 and a leader-style delivery.
Peter will say a bit more about that. We think that real
opportunities for integration are being missed. To give
just one example, axis 2, agri-environment, is about
delivering environmental benefits. On Exmoor that
often means farmers working together to do some
moorland management and yet they cannot get axis 1
funding for the kit they need to manage it.
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or part, in any form before
00.01am GMT Wednesday 16 February 2011