PROTECTING ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
introduced the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme in 1987.
It seeks to encourage farmers to safeguard areas of the countryside
where the landscape, wildlife or historic interest is of national
importance. Those farmers within a designated area who wish to
take part in the Scheme enter into a management agreement with
the Ministry. The agreements oblige farmers to farm their land
in an environmentally friendly way for ten years in return for
an annual payment. Payments vary according to the amount of land
entered into the agreement and the conditions specified for the
management of the land. In 1996-97 grants totalling some £32.5 million
were paid to over 8,000 agreement holders covering nearly 450,000
hectares. The Scheme is part funded by the European Union.[1]
2. On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and
Auditor General the Committee examined the impact of the Scheme,
the Ministry's planning and budgeting, the administrative costs
and the strength of the action they take to ensure compliance
with regulations.
3. Our general view was that the Ministry's planning
and management of this scheme have been unimpressive. It is on
the face of things, surprising that nearly 10 years after the
Scheme was introduced farmers had entered into agreements covering
less than half of the total eligible land, but it is hard to get
an accurate proportionate measure of take-up. Although the Scheme
was always intended to apply to clearly defined geographical areas,
the Ministry's initial estimates of eligible land at the start
of the Scheme proved to be unreliable. The Ministry's budgets
for expenditure on the Scheme in recent years have proved to be
excessive, and their administration costs have been high. Also
we found it disappointing that the Ministry themselves had not
developed robust ways of measuring how well they have done under
the Scheme.
4. Our more specific conclusions and recommendations,
which underpin the general views above, are as follows:
on impact of the scheme
(i) The Committee are concerned that the
impact of the Scheme has not been as great as it might have been
as measured by levels of take-up. We recognise the voluntary nature
of the Scheme and of course public money should never be spent
unnecessarily. However, it seemed to the Committee that the Ministry
might have been more proactive in marketing the Scheme to farmers
where take-up has been low, for example in river valley, coastal
and wetland areas (paragraph 17).
(ii) It is surprising that the Ministry
did not have plans to update their research about what motivates
farmers to participate in the Scheme and why take up remains poor.
Given the continuing emphasis on environmentally friendly practices
in agriculture, a better understanding on these issues is important
to the Ministry. We note that they have undertaken opinion surveys;
but they need to consolidate this work by identifying those incentives
shown to be successful in encouraging farmers to join in the Scheme,
while at the same time representing good value for money (paragraph 18).
(iii) We are dismayed that, ten years after
the start of the Scheme, the Ministry have still not developed
an adequate set of measurable targets for judging the success
of the Scheme. Environmental monitoring has been in place but
this is no substitute for performance criteria of the kind being
introduced for chalk grassland and dry stone walls to produce
evidence of the maintenance or enhancement of these features.
We urge the Ministry to give greater concentration to developing
similar ways of measuring the achievement of targets and impact
of the Scheme (paragraph 19).
(iv) We note that the Ministry have made
provision for environmentally friendly arable farming in two Environmentally
Sensitive Areas. The Committee look to the Ministry to review
the results of these provisions with a view to extending them
into other Scheme Areas where there is arable farming in order
to increase take-up and environmental benefits (paragraph 20).
on planning and budgeting
(v) We are surprised that the Ministry did
not have accurate records of the eligible land before launching
the Scheme. As a result, the take-up in relation to eligible grassland
in Dartmoor amounted to 50 per cent more hectares than the Ministry
had thought would be eligible (paragraph 29).
(vi) We note the Ministry's reservations
about the cost-effectiveness of compiling a complete and accurate
record of eligible land from the start of the Environmentally
Sensitive Areas Scheme; and their assurances that their actual
payments to farmers have been soundly based. However, we consider
that the Ministry's planning for this Scheme was inadequate. Financial
and management control would have been enhanced if payments had
been set against a well-founded estimate of the area of land eligible
for support by the taxpayer. We look to the Ministry's computerised
mapping system to play an effective part in this process (paragraph
30).
(vii) It is unsatisfactory that the Ministry
have consistently overestimated the net cost of the Environmentally
Sensitive Areas Scheme. And in 1995-96 alone the amount paid out
to farmers was £16 million compared with the Supply Estimate
put to Parliament of £37 million (paragraph 31).
(viii) The Committee do not expect departments
to need to be reminded of the importance of accurate planning
and forecasting when presenting estimates to Parliament, for the
purposes of controlling public expenditure, and for monitoring
the achievement of their objectives. In doing so they need to
take a realistic view on the degree to which European Union financial
support will be forthcoming. It is clear to us that the Ministry
have been unduly cautious on this issue (paragraph 32).
on administration of the scheme
(ix) We are concerned that, in 1995-96,
administrative costs represented no less than 46 per cent of the
total grants paid under the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme.
While we appreciate that the administration of the Scheme is labour-intensive
because of the individual nature of the agreements, this is a
disturbingly high figure. We therefore look to the Ministry to
fulfil their expectation of bringing the ratio below 20 per cent
after 1998-99 (paragraph 46).
(x) It is unsatisfactory that the Ministry
were unable to give convincing explanations for the wide variations
in the regional office costs on the administration of this Scheme;
and that they attributed some of these variations to differences
in efficiency. We agree with them that the identification and
dissemination of best practice is key to improving the efficiency
of all regional offices. We expect to see this work carried through,
together with the development of a set of targets against which
the performance of regional offices can be assessed (paragraph
47).
(xi) The Committee are not convinced that
the better direction and monitoring of the work of project staff
would have a marked effect on administrative costs; it should
improve efficiency and may reduce costs. The Committee expect
the Ministry to act on the recommendations from the efficiency
review which they had completed (paragraph 48).
(xii) We note that a new Environmentally
Sensitive Areas monitoring programme is to be introduced in 1999-2000
and that the costs of evaluation are expected to fall markedly.
We endorse the implementation of a risk-based approach to farm
inspections but would like to have seen it introduced sooner.
We would be concerned if the Ministry were to devote reduced attention
to the prevention and detection of cases of non-compliance (paragraph
49).
(xiii) It is unacceptable that where inspection
visits have found evidence of non-compliance with the Scheme,
the Ministry should so often have regarded just the sending of
warning letters as a sufficient sanction. We note that the introduction
of penalties under European Union regulations now provides increased
scope for more effective action, and we urge the Ministry to make
good use of them. There need to be effective deterrents against
misuse of taxpayers' money (paragraph 50).
1 C&AG's report (HC 120 of Session 1997-98), paras
1.2-1.7 Back
| 
