Examination of Witnesses (Questions 86-99)
20 APRIL 2004
MR MARK
HUDSON AND
MR COLIN
HEDLEY
Q86 Chairman: Good afternoon, Mr Hudson,
and welcome to this Sub-Committee looking into sites of special
scientific interest. We have had a written submission from you
but I think, Mr Hudson, you would like just to say a few words
by way of introduction before we get round to our grilling of
you this afternoon?
Mr Hudson: Thank you, Chairman.
I would be grateful just for three minutes if you would allow
me as you have done. I thought it might be helpful just to set
the scene as you suggested. A characteristic of the great majority
of landowners is that they take a long-term view of management
of their land and thus take their responsibilities to conservation
seriously. Indeed, many of the areas designated as SSSIs owe their
environmental value to the land practices and land stewardship
they were pursuing before, sometimes long before, the Wildlife
and Countryside Act granted more proactive powers in 1981 to English
Nature to secure the conservation of these sites. The partnership
approach to conservation proposed by English Nature, and which
we support, should be seen in this context as well as in the context
of the scientific expertise of many English Nature staff. Land
managers—that is landowners, farmers, gamekeepers, fisheries
and shoot managers—are, with very few exceptions, keen to
work with English Nature to maintain and, where possible, enhance
the condition of SSSIs. To succeed over a sustained period, conservation
must be practical to fit into the essential objective of running
an economically-viable business. A business that is not viable
cannot provide long-term conservation. Some landowners have the
financial resources to accommodate conservation into their land
management plans. Indeed, many do more than is statutorily required
of them because they take pride. For many others it cannot be
assumed that additional conservation requirements are so easily
accommodated, especially where the business, often a farming business,
is in a sector or area where farming incomes have been hit in
recent years. Farming incomes in the uplands in 2002-03 were averaging
only £9,500, equivalent to less than £4.60 per hour
for a 40-hour week, and incomes were lower than that in the immediately
preceding year. That makes investment in new practices hard for
many and it makes sensible management agreements, with payments
where there is a cost that is not being met through other alternatives
such as agri-environment schemes between English Nature and individual
land managers, very important. Most SSSIs still do not have such
agreements. The power to designate SSSIs has been in existence
since the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act
but it is only since the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act that
designation has involved practical commitments by landowners.
That means that SSSIs were being designated for over 30 years
without as much consideration as to their management and without
so much concern from landowners as to the implications, as would
be the case today. So when the PSA target refers to the totality
of SSSIs, it should be remembered that for many there was no assessment
of the extent of management that would be required nor the potential
costs for land managers in doing so when the designation was made
originally. Against that background there is a story to tell of
conservation on SSSIs in England which is actually a positive
one and one in which we as a country should take some pride. It
is also noticeable that where English Nature have identified problems
these have been attributed to two main causes in particular—overgrazing
and burning regimes in the uplands. We are still in the early
stages of predicting what effects CAP reform may have, and in
particular the cutting of CAP support on production and what that
effect may be on grazing densities in the uplands, but what we
can say is that the incentive to graze more rather than less stock
to attract a subsidy will disappear. In some places the problem
may indeed shift from over to undergrazing. We also see considerable
potential in the restructured Higher Level and Entry Level Stewardship
Schemes to embed consistently good burning practices across the
uplands. If those practices are reached through voluntary agreements
we believe that they will be more relevant to the terrain and
environment and observed with greater commitment by the land managers
than if imposed through cross-compliance. The history of agri-environments
is that if you can secure the land manager's voluntary agreement
to do something he will very often become interested and proud
in doing more and indeed better. That is the message, Chairman,
I would convey to successful SSSI conservation more widely.
Q87 Chairman: Thank you very much for
that bit of scene setting as you put it. I think part of what
I take from your message is about the need for positive incentives
to landowners and land managers. You have referred to the proposed
Higher Level Tier of the Environment Stewardship Scheme in your
introductory remarks. Could you just say a little more to us about
how you see those proposals helping to provide the incentives
that are needed?
Mr Hudson: First of all, I think
that the initial cross-compliance regulations, which you did not
mention but are there with the Single Farm Payments, need to be
relatively light touch and, as you are probably aware, there is
consultation going on at this moment as we speak. We see the Entry
Level Scheme and Higher Level Scheme as being an opportunity for
much more targeted payments for the management of SSSIs to be
introduced and we feel that they should have been done through
these two schemes, the Entry Level Scheme and the Higher Level
Scheme, in order for managers to be encouraged with partnerships
from English Nature to actually carry out the management that
is necessary for successful SSSI conservation.
Chairman: Thank you. You have mentioned
English Nature and obviously the relationship between landowners
and English Nature is crucial, and, David, can I pass to you to
deal with that issue.
Q88 Mr Drew: I want to take this in two
forms really. I would like to know what is the formal relationship
with English Nature and is this sufficient for the changes in
the payment system, or what recommendations would you be making
to improve it? We will start with that question and then look
at something slightly different.
Mr Hudson: I take it that the
formal relationship you refer to is the relationship between English
Nature and the owner or occupier of the SSSI?
Q89 Mr Drew: Yes, I am talking about
your members.
Mr Hudson: Indeed. I am going
to pass that to my colleague Colin Hedley, who has had a fair
amount of experience in this and has had had a number of discussions
with members on this. Mr Hedley, could you answer Mr Drew's question.
Mr Hedley: Obviously, as you said,
the relationship between English Nature staff (who have the specialist
skills on SSSIs) and our members and other land mangers is crucial
to delivering favourable condition. There are some concerns that
some of our members report. Generally it would be fair to say
that most members have a positive relationship with English Nature
but also we need to bear in mind that to achieve 95% of SSSIs
to be in favourable condition we need good, positive relationships,
I would argue, with the vast majority of land managers. There
are some concerns our members report. We have already mentioned
two key issues this afternoon. With the burning issue and the
overgrazing issue being the key factors for not achieving favourable
condition, both of them do strike very much at the heart of the
economic management, if you like, or businesses of our members.
So they are issues that should be handled very delicately and
I would argue in a very structured, progressive sort of way in
building up a rapport and a relationship. Sometimes that relationship
is lacking. One issue that seems to be raised is that the contact
with English Nature and our members is not as regular as perhaps
would be ideal. I think that needs to be addressed quite urgently.
I think there is an issue of change of turnover of staff too,
as I think we have said in our submission. Land managers do like
to have regular contact, farmers do like to bounce ideas off people
or have that reassurance, particularly with SSSIs and the conservation
issues and the topic generally is one that is quite a new concept
where the detail is very different to them and if that contact
is not there because of a changeover of staff that is a concern.
I think sometimes that relationship is not particularly positive
either. I am not apportioning blame, it might just be a clash
of personalities, but again we need to build a good structured
relationship if we are going to achieve the PSA target and also
perhaps the future enhancement of the site that that target still
allows.
Q90 Mr Drew: I will leave overgrazing
and the moorland burning issues because obviously colleagues are
going to pick those up. Can I just look at this notion therefore
of the Haskins proposal of the integrated land management agency.
Do you welcome that? Do you see that as a positive step forward
or is this going to be another layer of bureaucracy?
Mr Hudson: I think it very much
depends how the integrated land management agency is constructed.
I think it also depends on what it ends up being responsible for.
Our view is that it is important for this new agency to have some
economic thread within its remit and not just be an environmental
agency. I say that because I think what we must avoid here is
the rebuilding of silos. You will be aware that the National Park
Authorities have in their remit to take account of the economic
and social well-being in the areas in which they are the authority.
We would like to see the new land management agency also have
that remit of having to look after economic and social well-being
along with its environmental responsibilities, so from that point
of view I think we must be careful it does not just become a larger
body dealing with environmental matters, important as they are,
without any consideration of economic and social matters as well.
Q91 Mr Drew: Besides the land your members
own, they will possibly also be renting from organisations like
the National Trust. In my area this has been a very difficult
relationship and I wonder what you would think of the role of
English Nature in terms of intermediating between common land
authorities and your members in as much as—and, as I say,
we are going on to the specifics but again this is an added complication—you
could look at the role of the wildlife trusts. All this is making
for additional complication in how SSSIs are managed. Is there
a way of cutting through some of this complication?
Mr Hudson: I think there always
should be ways of cutting complication if you can find them. Harking
back to the original question as to the role of the new integrated
land management agency, clearly there is sense in having one agency
which a tenant or an occupier has to work through in order to
achieve what the agency is trying to achieve. While that trust
plays a slightly different role, I think on the whole that is
to be welcomed. You asked earlier about the relationship between
the tenant and landlords and you cited the National Trust. I do
not think I am in a position to—
Q92 Mr Drew: Why I was using the National
Trust is clearly the National Trust is a major landowner.
Mr Hudson: Indeed.
Q93 Mr Drew: Obviously it is a major
landowner of land which has been designated as SSSIs. I am looking
at whether what is seen to be a good relationship between yourself
and English Nature could be improved by the integrated land management
body, and how do these other players really fit into this picture,
and do you actually see English Nature as a vital assistant, almost
an advocate of your position with some of those bodies to make
sure that you could farm the land economically as well as looking
after it environmentally?
Mr Hudson: English Nature's interest
as it stands now is of course to look after the environmental
side of business, not to look after the farming side, and what
we have to find is a system whereby farms can be farmed economically
for profit as well as in doing that looking after the necessary
environmental point as well. In terms of the role of the Wildlife
Trust particularly Colin may have a view on that so can I ask
him to pick that up because it is one that is mentioned to us.
Mr Hedley: Am I right in thinking
the issue you are raising here is whether the position would be
simply the SSSI—
Q94 Mr Drew: What I am looking at is
what the level of complication is at the moment. With the integrated
land management body is that going to get worse and really where
do English Nature fit into this transition?
Mr Hedley: Okay, I see what you
mean. It is still going to be critical, is it not, to achieve
favourable condition (if everybody is agreed on what the favourable
condition is for that site and that it is achievable) that the
specialist advice is easily deliverable to the land manager in
one way or another, and I think the skills that English Nature
have still got to play a key part. You mentioned the Wildlife
Trust and National Trust and the continued management through
livestock and hence the economic viability of those systems is
very important, but obviously there are land areas where the environmental
objectives are extremely high so in theory there should not necessarily
be a problem. Obviously what we are looking forward to from next
year with the decoupling of agricultural subsidies and the new
Higher Level agricultural scheme, which we have got reason to
believe will improve on what is a pretty good set of schemes we
have at the moment, is that we should be able to arrive at a much
more positive outcome.
Q95 Joan Ruddock: I want to look with
our witnesses at the condition of SSSIs. Partly going back to
your evidence about the relationship and what Mr Hedley has already
said about the contact being not as good as it could be with English
Nature, I wonder to what extent site managers and owners do understand
what favourable condition is and how they are expected to achieve
it?
Mr Hudson: I think there is a
potential clash here between the site owner or the site occupier
as to what favourable condition should be or is and in some cases
what English Nature's view may be. It is useful that you raise
this because clearly this is an objective assessment by two individuals.
At the same time of course the site owner has got to make his
living off that site as well. I think that there are examples,
for instance, where there may be disagreements as to what overgrazing
actually is and what undergrazing is. There are degrees of both
and it is therefore always going to have to be a matter of two
individuals talking sensibly and coming to some agreement as to
what a reasonable favourable condition should be. That does not
mean there are going to be no disagreements, clearly you will
get occasions where there will be. I think if both parties—and
I do mean both parties, both the occupier and in this case English
Nature—work towards a common goal and can communicate with
each other, which on the whole they do very well, then I think
that the definition of what favourable condition is for a particular
site should be able to be achieved, but there will be some disagreements,
and Colin may want to add to that.
Mr Hedley: As Mark said, ownership
is a real key issue. There is definitely scope to improve communication
with SSSI managers and owners about changes in the management
of SSSIs and I know English Nature is working on that with their
views about management initiatives that are trying to improve
that dialogue. The issue Mark has raised is then to have agreement
on this. Obviously there are issues where people disagree about
favourable condition. Sometimes that might well be because land
managers see the change of management as a major threat and from
the response of our members to this issue I think in many cases
there is justifiable concern over the fact that they might well
be encouraged to embark on a direction that is a waste of time
and resources. I think on Mark's point about a real partnership
there is perhaps scope to improve the communication and also perhaps
to be prepared to evolve this process and perhaps to be able to
review, if possible, what favourable condition is for that site
to make sure that it does evolve in a constructive way that does
not waste money through environmental payments trying to encourage
things which are not practical on that site and does not waste
the resources of our members and other land managers. The short
answer would be there is scope for improvement, there are moves
to improve that situation, and we are not quite engaged in that
full partnership on all sides, which I think does offer so much
potential.
Q96 Joan Ruddock: That is obviously helpful.
Do you find that English Nature are consistent in their approach
or are there any difficulties with their consistency or lack of
consistency? Are you dialoguing against a constant that is consistent
or not?
Mr Hedley: It is obviously a very
technical area. I think there does seem to be inconsistency in
this area. There does seem to be a considerable amount of concern
from some of our members whom we regard very highly, members that
perhaps are heavily involved with committees and are very broad-minded
in terms of all sorts of issues. There are just some concerns
there and I think this is one area where we have a dialogue with
English Nature at a national level, and a positive one it is,
and I think it is one of those areas where we could investigate
a little bit more just to explore it a little bit more between
the two organisations and also therefore to try and improve the
situation on the ground.
Mr Hudson: I think also, if I
may add to that Chairman, one must also remember that disagreements
between people are always talked about fairly regularly. Where
there is agreement and harmony you tend not to hear too much about
this. You must balance that, in our view, as to how good the relationship
is or is not between English Nature and the occupiers.
Q97 Joan Ruddock: Given that perhaps
it is only a minority of cases where there are disagreements from
what you say, can you give us any ideas about how those disagreements
are settled when they arise?
Mr Hudson: Again I am going to
ask Colin because he has much more practical experience.
Mr Hedley: The feedback I am getting
is that those issues can sometimes be rectified by a change of
staff in some cases. It can be a clash of personalities and some
members report a much more positive dialogue once that has been
changed. I think, to be quite frank, at the moment with some of
the issues over burning and overgrazing, which are the two key
concerns at the moment—and I might just mention that undergrazing
probably will be a bigger issue in the future—I think on
those two there is still a sense of disagreement and there is
perhaps not at the moment with some land managers any positive
development towards a more constructive situation. Obviously English
Nature is working with several initiatives on reducing grazing
and trying to work with land managers and if the results of those
are successful then, as you know, the farming grapevine is extremely
efficient and hopefully the good news will filter out and perhaps
the people who are a little bit unsure will start to engage in
a more and more positive dialogue. At the moment there seems to
be a bit of a status quo situation rather than a movement
to resolution in a significant number of cases. Or that is the
impression I get from our members.
Q98 Joan Ruddock: That suggests people
come to you and that when they run into real problems they then
contact the national organisation?
Mr Hedley: If they have concerns
such as, "I need some background. What is the situation for
this? What are my responsibilities for this?" they come to
us. We have a number of regional offices as well and our regional
directors get a steady number. I think it is important to state,
as Mark has just mentioned there, that it does seem to be a minority
(although perhaps quite significant) but overall on balance people
seem to be generally happy—or perhaps they are just blissfully
unaware, I do not know.
Q99 Joan Ruddock: Do your regional officers
just provide information or do they mediate in certain circumstances?
Mr Hedley: I am not aware they
go into technical mediation but I do know some members have employed
local agents for that purpose.
| 
