Farming in the Uplands - ARCHIVE: Defra

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Q161 George Eustice: One of the complaints I have had from farmers who have been involved in it is that although the emphasis from the European Union is very much on business development, albeit with an environmental dimension, the way Defra have cloaked it with their own guidance means it is driven down to very specific environmental projects. Dr Stone: We have taken the RDA to task many times. They will always say that if you read the measures and objectives they all look really good. The problem arises when it actually comes down to the bits that they are allowed to do. Peter Barfoot: I think we have a fundamental problem about integrated delivery. We have had two stabs at it with the ERDP and the RDPE and both times we have failed to achieve anything approaching integration. By “integration” I mean the old three-legged stool: environment, economy and local communities. We, in the North York Moors, provided the lead partner role for our leader partnership area, which is much bigger than just the national park. At the outset I was hopeful that if good projects came forward that fitted axis 1 or axis 2 we could say, “Well, this is joined up and we will draw on those funds and will be able to achieve more by joining everything together.” That was a pipe dream, and anything that came out of our leader process that was environmental could never even look at getting axis 2 money for environmental work. Therefore, we are just not joining things up. In the uplands in particular, where there is a need for fine grain stuff that is community driven and bottom up, with good ideas coming from local communities, the attitude should be: “Right, we’ll run with that and it’ll work; it’ll provide two part-time jobs.” Two parttime jobs in an upland community is a lot. Part-time jobs and that type of thing enable a small farmer to get extra income. That is the level at which we ought to be working. I do not know all the machinations of the European regulations, but somehow we want to join it up, make it work and deliver it. Q162 Chair: Perhaps I may ask one last question. There are a couple we have not had time for and we Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 35 10 November 2010 Dr Nigel Stone and Peter Barfoot would like to write to you about them. In the context of 70 million visitors to national parks a year, what ideas do you have for those visitors to support the farms and economic activity in an acceptable way? Dr Stone: Quite a number of parks have voluntary visitor contribution schemes. I think the best workedup example I know is in the Lake District where there is a separate body that administers and manages it in co-operation with the tourism industry. Many visitors will pay an extra £1 a night or for a meal and so on. Visitors will contribute in that way. We have a small scheme in Exmoor. I guess you do in— Peter Barfoot: No. Dr Stone: No, you don’t. So these things have been tried and piloted, but they are not substantial sums of money. The Lake District is the biggest and I understand that is over £100,000 a year. I would need to give you the accurate figures. 5 Chair: It would be helpful to have those figures. Dr Stone: The others of which I am aware are much smaller in scale. As to the potential to expand them— because they are complicated to run and manage— they are important, but I do not think they will replace other sources of funding. Peter Barfoot: From the tourism point of view, it is a big economic driver in the areas. Chair: I was thinking of bed and breakfast. Peter Barfoot: Yes. Some farmers benefit directly; others do not. In making that link, in my own mind I have never come up with a satisfactory mechanism that is not hideously complicated and will not cost an awful lot of money to run. Effectively, from my own point of view it is a matter of visitors coming to the area and driving the industry. Taxes are paid and that is invested in providing the public benefits which some of the visitors come there to see in the first place. Chair: Thank you for your patience. I apologise again for the inevitable delay in starting. I thank you and my colleagues so much for remaining. We will certainly be in touch again. EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: Not to be published in full, or part, in any form before 00.01am GMT Wednesday 16 February 2011 5 Ev 90
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: EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: Not to be p
Page 47 and 48: 6 Conclusion EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY
Page 49 and 50: 4: A new approach to funding EMBARG
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 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 93: to engage in a conversation with th
Page 113 and 114: Written evidence Environment, Food
Page 145 and 146:
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
show all

Farming in the Uplands - ARCHIVE: Defra

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?