Memorandum submitted by the Council for
the Protection of Rural England ( G20)
INTRODUCTION AND
ASPIRATION FOR
A "RURAL"
DEPARTMENT
1. CPRE is a national charity which helps
people to protect their local countryside where there is threat,
to enhance it where there is opportunity, and to keep it beautiful,
productive and enjoyable for everyone. We have a longstanding
interest in the role of Government in rural areas and welcome
the opportunity to submit evidence to the Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs Committee inquiry into the role of the newly created
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).
2. CPRE has in the past argued against the
establishment of a "rural" Department because of concerns
regarding the potential marginalisation of rural issues across
Whitehall. With many of the key issues affecting rural areas such
as the provision of healthcare, education and affordable housing
being the responsibility of other Departments, there was also
a risk that a "rural" Department would not have sufficient
influence over key priorities and outcomes. We were also concerned
about the dangers of separating environmental and rural responsibilities
from the then DETR and the risk that this might create for a stronger
focus within that Department on delivering infrastructure and
development rather than achieving wider policy objectives.
3. Reflecting recent changes, CPRE has moved
from this position. Our report A Department for Rural Affairs—changing
MAFF or changing names, published in May 2001, outlined a
range of ways in which MAFF could be restructured and re-invigorated
to better a deliver a more integrated and innovative approach
to rural areas. This included the establishment of new environment
and rural development divisions within MAFF as well as a range
of measures to foster a new culture within the Department, which
together could secure the integrated approach to rural areas envisaged
by the Rural White Paper.
4. Our key aspirations for the new Department
were that it should:
— be a modern forward-looking Department
that could enthusiastically take forward and deliver Government
policy for land management (including farming), food, rural communities,
landscape, heritage, public enjoyment, recreation and fisheries;
— be an integrated Department that
moves forward on environmental, social, economic and resource
management objectives together and where policies to deliver more
sustainable farming fit within a wider approach to providing more
sustainable and integrated land management and rural development;
— acknowledge the role of farming and
agriculture in the modern economy of rural areas and not be dominated
by agricultural interests;
— champion rural areas and help secure
a strong rural dimension in the work of all Government Departments;
— promote integration between urban
and rural communities and recognise the importance of the beauty,
tranquillity and diversity of the countryside to the nation and
quality of life;
— have a strong tier at a regional
level that is integrated with other Government Departments and
regional institutions, processes and stakeholders and has the
capacity to tailor policy to suit the differing needs and opportunities
of England's very diverse rural areas; and
— be open and accessible to a wide
range of stakeholders and take a fully consultative approach to
policy development.
OVERVIEW OF
PROGRESS SO
FAR
5. CPRE broadly welcomed the opportunities
created by DEFRA's establishment last year. Its overall structure
reflects many of our recommendations and aspirations for a reformed
MAFF and provides real opportunities to bring a stronger environmental
input into the future of food and farming policy and to develop
environmental policy in a manner which is better integrated with
the countryside and rural land use issues. Its welcome aims and
objectives are also broad and reflect the "multi-purpose"
nature of the countryside and the need to deliver on a range of
functions—not just the production of food and fibre. The
establishment and subsequent report of the independent Policy
Commission on the Future of Farming and Food (the Curry Report)
has reinforced the need for a step-change in farming and the food
chain in which the environment plays a more integral role—an
objective to which DEFRA should be strongly positioned to respond.
6. We have also welcomed the strengthened
regionalisation of DEFRA's responsibilities and, in particular,
its integration with the Government Offices of the Regions. This,
we hope, will help develop a more integrated approach to rural
policy and delivery that links farming with the wider rural agenda.
The ability to deliver such enhancements is improved by the continued
support by DEFRA for the England Rural Development Programme and
its Regional Chapters. These allow for a more discerning approach
to rural programmes and the better matching of support to the
diversity of rural England. The establishment of new consultative
arrangements, such as the national and Regional Rural Affairs
Forums and ERDP consultation groups, should also enable the refinement
of policies and programmes to meet regional priorities and needs.
7. We remain concerned, however, that the
environment overall is becoming divorced from other Government
policy decisions. Moreover, we believe DEFRA has been slow to
respond to the opportunities for an integrated approach to farming,
the countryside and the environment offered by its creation. For
example, DEFRA has, so far, been noticeably absent from engaging
positively in some key debates including the Government's current
review of the planning system, and its proposals to speed up consideration
of major infrastructure projects and invest in new roads. It has
also been slow to respond to the many welcome recommendations
of the recent Curry Report, behind which there was almost universal
support. While we recognise the constraints of the 2002 Spending
Review process, and the uncertainty this creates for available
resources, we believe that more than has been achieved through
the recent round of regional consultations could have been done
to move the debate on to the mechanics of implementation.
FOSTERING A
NEW CULTURE
8. The attitude and approach of existing
staff is a potential barrier to delivering the opportunities of
a new approach to rural and environmental issues offered by DEFRA.
It is essential that officials at all levels are conversant with
its new aims and objectives and are encouraged to adopt a new
and more holistic approach to solving rural problems. This will
be a particular challenge given the cultural "inertia"
that appeared endemic in the former MAFF and the dominance of
staff, in terms of numbers and resources, focused on the agricultural
sector. Our paper, DEFRA—A New Way for a New Department
(see Annex) provides a range of integration mechanisms to
assist the cultural change. In addition to restructuring and reviewing
policies and programmes, therefore, we urge the Committee to recommend
that DEFRA takes seriously the need for a cultural change within
the Department. This agenda should be led by the Department's
Corporate Strategy Unit with leadership from the Board and senior
Ministers. In the longer term, DEFRA should seek to secure additional
resources from a larger share of the EU Rural Development Regulation
funds and as a result redress the current imbalance in the Department's
resources to better reflect the role of farming in the modern
economy of rural areas.
IMPLEMENTING THE
RURAL WHITE
PAPER
9. Clearly the foot and mouth outbreak last
year was a major distraction from DEFRA's early programme. Now,
more than ever, there is a pressing need to secure change on the
ground. The Rural White Paper provides many welcome initiatives
and ideas that could help address the problems of service decline,
lack of affordable housing and poor access to training and childcare
facing many rural communities. The challenge to DEFRA is to translate
these into tangible improvements on the ground.
10. A key tool to assist this process of
delivery is that of "rural proofing". The recent Countryside
Agency report on rural proofing, however, highlighted that DEFRA
could be doing more internally and externally to rural proof policy
and practice. How the Department responds to this challenge will
be critical in ensuring the effective implementation of the Rural
White Paper, as many aspects of delivery lie beyond DEFRA's areas
of responsibility. We urge the Committee to recommend that DEFRA
gets back on track with the implementation of the Rural White
Paper, and adopts the rural proofing processes identified by the
Countryside Agency. Achieving the Rural Services Standard, as
set out in the Rural White Paper, should be a cross-departmental
Public Service Agreement coming out of Spending Review 2002.
11. DEFRA will also need to engage with
the environmental aspects of the implementation of the Urban White
Paper as many of the issues facing the countryside cannot be looked
at in isolation from urban areas. While we strongly support the
Government's commitment to securing an urban renaissance, we would
highlight the disparity of commitment across Government to this
process compared with the priority attached to the Rural White
Paper. For example, plans for an Urban Summit with the active
involvement of all relevant Government Departments are well advanced
and supported by a dedicated team of civil servants within the
former DTLR and there is a regular bulletin of progress on Urban
White Paper implementation. We urge the Committee to encourage
DEFRA to convene a "Rural Summit" and foster cross-Government
support for the implementation of the Rural White Paper.
A STRONG ROLE
IN LAND
USE PLANNING
AND CHAMPIONING
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
12. The role of DEFRA in relation to land
use planning is also critical. DEFRA has established a small planning
team but this is currently under-resourced and not effectively
connected to key points of the Department. As highlighted above,
we are concerned that they have been largely absent from the debate
surrounding the Government's Planning Green Paper until very recently
and have yet to articulate a clear view of the role of planning
in relation to rural development and farm diversification. We
urge the Committee to stress the need for the more active engagement
of DEFRA in land use planning and highlight, in particular, the
role of planning in securing sustainable patterns of development.
13. A key concern remains the relationship
between DEFRA and other Government Departments. The Greening Government
initiative no longer benefits from a senior member of the Government
championing it, and the use of environmental appraisal elsewhere
in Government is distinctly patchy. The most recent Annual Report
of the Green Ministers Committee notes, for example, that only
55 environmental appraisals were produced between 1 April 2000
and 31 March 2001, and eleven departments produced no environmental
appraisals at all. If the causes of unsustainable trends are to
be tackled at source, it will be important that DEFRA's ability
to influence thinking in other parts of Whitehall is strengthened.
This requires the environment to be considered as a core priority
for the Government as a whole, rather than a constraint or limitation
on the activity of other departments. The Air Transport White
Paper; recommendations of the Government's Multi-Modal Studies;
the forthcoming Energy White Paper; and the DTI's programme on
resource productivity, as well as the planning review, are all
areas where DEFRA will need effectively to articulate environmental
considerations. While processes were established for joint working
with DTLR, the resources committed to this task were small and
their effectiveness hard to judge. We recommend that the Committee
calls for a stronger and more pro-active engagement of DEFRA in
articulating the environmental dimension of Government policy,
and promoting its integration into other policy areas.
14. It is also becoming increasingly apparent,
for example through the planning review, that the loss of the
former DETR environmental directorates from the former DTLR to
DEFRA was having a negative impact on the work and objectives
of the former DTLR. This may be further exacerbated by the recent
reshuffle and reorganisation of Government Departments into separate
Ministries for transport and regions, local government and planning.
The focus of the slimmed down Department of Transport is likely
to be on delivering improvements to the experience of travelling
by investing in major new infrastructure. Rising traffic levels
represent a Headline Sustainable Development Indicator which is
moving in the wrong direction, yet which will not be sufficiently
addressed through the current spending priorities in the 10-Year
Transport Plan which forecasts a 17 per cent increase in traffic.
It will be particularly important, therefore, that DEFRA is able
to engage with the new DOT and ensure wider environmental and
sustainable development objectives are incorporated into its policies
and spending priorities. Mechanisms to do this could include:
greater use of environmental appraisal by DOT in policy making;
re-affirming that the DTLR/DEFRA Protocol on joint working applies
to the DOT; increasing staff resources within DEFRA for joint
working; and enabling a senior DEFRA official to continue to sit
on the DOT Board. We recommend the Committee Highlights the need
for greater cross-Government co-operation and integration by other
Departments with DEFRA.
15. One of the main mechanisms for integrating
environmental concerns into policy making has been the use of
Sustainable Development Headline Indicators. While these have
provided a useful monitoring tool, they have not been as effective
in capturing the attention of Ministers and officials as specific
targets (eg on climate change or congestion). More Departments
are being encouraged to follow the lead taken by the Department
of Health and the then DETR in publishing 10 Year Plans. In addition
to the various strategies which DEFRA will be publishing, we believe
there would be great value in DEFRA developing a 10-Year plan
for the Environment. This would focus on outcomes and bind other
Departments more effectively into Government-wide targets. The
outcome targets of such a Plan could be incorporated into the
Public Service Agreements of a range of departments in the Spending
Review. We recommend that the Committee calls for the development
of a 10-Year Plan for the Environment.
THE ROLE
OF LANDSCAPE
16. While we welcome the broad thrust of
the aims and objectives of DEFRA, we are concerned that its vision
fails specifically to mention the importance of a diverse and
beautiful rural landscape. Moreover, we are disappointed that
the importance of a high quality countryside is not yet fully
understood by DEFRA overall. This is particularly the case given
the lessons highlighted by the foot and mouth experience last
year that demonstrated the importance of the rural landscape to
local, regional and national economies and the public in general
and the multi-purpose nature of a modern countryside. The 2000
Rural White Paper highlights the importance of rural landscape
and included commitments to "look after, restore and conserve
the landscape" and to "develop a more holistic approach
which takes better account of all landscape in national best practice
guidance".
17. DEFRA, however, has been slow to progress
many of the commitments on landscape. For example, the development
of an indicator of countryside quality, including tranquillity,
dark skies and countryside character, is only in the very early
stages. The Department has also taken a very cautious approach
to the designation of the proposed National Park in the New Forest—recently
announcing a full public inquiry which will potentially revisit
many of the issues upon which there has already been extensive
consultation by the Countryside Agency. We urge the Committee
to call for a more concerted effort to recognise, protect and
enhance the beauty and diversity of the rural landscape and the
"countryside for its own sake" across DEFRA's areas
of responsibility.
FOSTERING SUSTAINABLE
FARMING
18. As highlighted above, we are disappointed
at the pace of implementation of the recommendations of the Curry
Report. We believe the Department should be taking a more confident
and pro-active approach to fostering a more sustainable and viable
farming industry that delivers a wide range of public goods, not
least a beautiful and diverse countryside. This includes the establishment
of pilot schemes to develop an entry-level agri-environment scheme
which provides outputs at a landscape scale, further de-coupling
of agricultural support payments from production and enabling
farmers to meet the regulatory responsibilities of forthcoming
EU legislation. We recommend that the Committee encourages DEFRA
to take forward the vision outlined in the Curry report more vigorously
and recognise the role of farming in delivering a range of benefits
for the countryside and the nation as a whole.
19. While DEFRA should seek to minimise
administrative costs of their schemes where possible, this objective
should not undermine the ability of schemes to deliver their environmental
objectives. We believe there is a strong justification for significant
resources to be available for the facilitation of farm support
and that a comprehensive farm audit should be included as an essential
element of any future agri-environment scheme. We urge the Committee
to recognise that good quality advice and planning is more than
an "administrative overhead" but is an essential part
of ensuring the delivery of the environmental outputs the schemes
are designed to support.
20. DEFRA should also be adopting a positive
stance in securing support for radical reform of the CAP across
Europe, including securing some significant changes through the
current Mid-Term Review. There is a significant consensus behind
the need for CAP reform. With its broad aims and objectives, increasingly
regionalised structure and potential for integration of environmental,
farming and rural development objectives, DEFRA is well placed
to pioneer a new approach to rural policy. We recommend that the
Committee calls on DEFRA to take a more pro-active stance in Europe
and lead the way in securing further reform of the CAP.
CONCLUSIONS
21. DEFRA is a Department which has tremendous
potential to deliver an integrated rural policy which reflects
the aspirations, needs and priorities of a modern countryside.
It also has a key but challenging role to play in securing sustainable
development as a core objective across Government. We believe
DEFRA is taking these roles seriously and is beginning to make
some welcome inroads. There remains, however, a long way to go
and influencing activity across Government will be a major challenge.
DEFRA should also not lose its broad perspective in its drive
to secure a sustainable future for farming and should remain vigilant
in remaining true to its vision.
May 2002
| 
