Memorandum submitted by the Countryside
Alliance (Appendix 28)
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1 The Countryside Alliance was a lead
voice in calling for a Department of Rural Affairs four years
ago, but the key failing of that resultant department, DEFRA,
has been its inability to implement policies at local level. Its
London base has left it disconnected to the communities it serves,
this Bill has the potential to bring a real opportunity to shift
the balance of power out to rural areas.
1.2 The Alliance gave a provisional welcome
to the Government's Rural Strategy. However, we felt bringing
together the key players to create a single integrated agency
is sensible only if it incorporates all dimensions of land management,
whereas the proposed agency would only bring together the environmental
aspects. This arrangement also runs the risk of disjointed land
use policy with social and economic land use priorities being
subordinated to environmental protectionismthis works against
the interests of a sustainable landscape.
1.3 The proposed integrated agency needs
a clearer remitat the moment it is trying to be jack-of-all-trades
master of none. The present aims of the new agency have the potential
to be contradictory, such as the protection of wildlife and landscape
might be at odds with encouraging outdoor recreation, this needs
to be addressed to ensure ideals set out in the rural strategy
are delivered.
1.4 We are disappointed in the draft bill
that there is no provision for cross border rural integration
with Scotlandit is vital to engage with devolved administrations,
this will ensure sustainable development in its truest sense is
achieved. We also have a lot to learn from experiences in Scotland,
such as Scottish Natural Heritage which now has a large remit
to deliver to rural Scotlandbut not enough fundingthere
is potential that the same will happen with the new integrated
agency and the rural commission.
1.5 Nowhere in this bill is a commitment
made to working with local communities. Local community perspectives
and participation in environmental management will continue not
be accommodated. This legislation will continue to perpetuate
a protectionist, centralised, command and control conservation
management system which will persist in being fragmented and ineffective
in managing complex conservation issues.
1.6 This bill could be fatally compromised
by trying to do too much, but, yet not really making a difference
in protecting and delivering for wildlife, landscape and ensuring
a better way of life in the rural communities it is supposed to
help.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 The Countryside Alliance's purpose is
to campaign for the countryside, country sports and the rural
way of life. Through campaigning, lobbying, publicity and education
the Alliance seeks to influence legislation and public policymaking
so as to ensure the sustainability of rural community lifefor
the benefit of everyone who believes that a real countryside is
worth saving.
2.2 The Alliance is a membership organisation,
soon to have incorporated company status, with over 100,000 full
ordinary members plus some 250,000 associate members through affiliated
clubs and societies.
2.3 The organisation is politically non-aligned
and has devolved operations in all four parts of the UK. Our countryside
needs policy, not party politics. It is up to the Governments
of the day to provide constructive, coherent policy, which helps
rather than harms rural families. This can only take place if
politicians consult rural communities, gain their consent for
proposed policy and legislation, and wherever possible empower
them to help find and implement their own solutions. The Alliance
aims to help ensure this happens.
2.4 The Countryside Alliance welcomes the
opportunity to respond to the EFRA Committee inquiry on the Natural
Environment and Rural Communities Bill. Our response will focus
on the terms of reference laid out by the EFRA Committee, but
will also include specific comments and amendments regarding the
draft bill and policy statement.
3. TERMS OF
REFERENCE
"Whether the provisions of the draft Bill
differ significantly from the institutional arrangements proposed
in the Government's Rural Strategy."
3.1 The Countryside Alliance was a lead
voice in calling for a Department of Rural Affairs four years
ago, but the key failing of that resultant department, DEFRA,
has been its inability to implement policies at local level. Its
London base has left it disconnected to the communities it serves,
this Bill has the potential to bring a real opportunity to shift
the balance of power out to rural areas.
3.2 The draft bill is similar to the institutional
arrangements laid out in the Rural Strategy, which the Alliance
gave a provisional welcome to. However, we felt bringing together
the key players to create a single integrated agency is sensible
only if it incorporates all dimensions of land management, whereas
the proposed agency would only bring together the environmental
aspects, and fails to include provisions for the full integration
of the Forestry Commission, this is just one element that demonstrates
the lack of commitment to true rural integration. This arrangement
also runs the risk of disjointed land use policy with social and
economic land use priorities being subordinated to environmental
protectionismthis works against the interests of an integrated
sustainable countryside. The Alliance believes that the draft
bill will fail to deliver the vision set out by Defra in their
Rural Strategy.
"Whether the provisions of the draft Bill,
if enacted, would in your opinion allow the Government to implement
its proposals in an effective way."
3.3 The Countryside Alliance welcomed the
publication of the draft Natural Environment and Rural Communities
Bill but had serious concerns about several of the recommendations,
such as the current form the Integrated Agency is going to take,
these were concerns that we have raised since the publication
of the Rural Strategy last summer and outlined in paragraph 3.2.
3.4 We are disappointed in the draft bill
that there is no provision for cross border rural integration
with Scotlandit is vital to engage with devolved administrations,
this will ensure sustainable development in its truest sense is
achieved. We also have a lot to learn from experiences in Scotland,
such as Scottish Natural Heritage which now has a large remit
to deliver to rural Scotlandbut not enough fundingthere
is potential that the same will happen with the new integrated
agency and the rural commission.
3.5 The proposed integrated agency needs
a clearer remitat the moment it is trying to be jack-of-all-trades
master of none. The present aims of the new agency have the potential
to be contradictory, such as the protection of wildlife and landscape
might be at odds with encouraging outdoor recreation, this needs
to be addressed to ensure ideals set out in the rural strategy
are delivered.
3.6 The draft bill offers greater protection
to wildlife and habitat protectionbut through greater enforcement
of existing legislation to secure better compliance, rather than
using the opportunity to making a commitment to working with local
land-management communities in achieving better habitat conditions
through "practical integration on the ground". This
is contrary to Government's commitment to working with communities
to achieve sustainable development. It is also contrary to the
Secretary of States forward in the policy statement, which stated:
"devolving responsibilities closer to rural
people and rural businesses,
. . . putting rural people and businesses first
. . . within a sustainable development framework which gives real
meaning to the ideal of practical integration on the ground"
3.7 This bill could be fatally compromised
by trying to do too much, but, yet not really making a difference
in protecting and delivering for wildlife, landscape and ensuring
a better way of life in the rural communities it is supposed to
help because of its lack of commitment to working with local rural
communities.
3.8 We must also question the timing of
bringing forward publication of this draft bill ahead of the scheduled
timetable for spring. To then rush through parliamentary scrutiny
is ludicrous and belies the commitment to stakeholder consultation.
The point of introducing a detailed and complicated Bill of this
kind that will have far-reaching consequences for rural economies
and communities at this stage is hard to discern, therefore it
is important to give the relevant amount of time for scrutiny,
to ensure this bill has a positive impact for wildlife, landscape
and rural communities, which we feel is not being given.
3.9 The proposed agreements with designated
bodies will create confusion not clarity by taking the sense of
direction out of the purpose of this proposed legislation and
remove accountability for delivery. This can hardly be expected
to allow Government to implement its proposals in an effective
way.
4. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
4.1 Part 1. Chapter 1. The Integrated Agency
Clause 2 (1) A mere "contribution"
is not a convincing commitment to sustainable development as one
is led to believe in the Policy Statement (P5, Point 6 "The
Bill will give statutory underpinning to this (the sustainable
development) agenda" and Margaret Beckett herself ".
. . our commitment to a better quality of life for all with sustainable
development at its heart" (DEFRA press release 10 February).
This also fails to take into account the economic contribution
of the land and how that can contribute to the enhancement of
the natural environment.
(2)(d) This purpose of the agency could
be at odds with its other objectives. Encouraging outdoor recreational
activities is a positive step forwardthis needs to be sensitively
implemented when there are fragile habitats and ecosystems involved.
Clause 7 (2)(a-b) "Imposing"
restrictions and obligations on land managers is not in the spirit
of the sustainable development agenda, nor the fresh approach
to natural environment and working with "others" as
expressed in the Policy Statement (P5, Point 7), nor is it in
the spirit of either the Berne or the Biodiversity Conventions.
This is not about "engagement" (Policy Statement Foreword),
but disengagement with rural communities.
Clause 8 (4) The compulsory purchase
of land for "experimental purposes" is the antithesis
of sustainable development in countryside where habitats and landscapes
have evolved because they have been and continue to be worked
by rural communities. Sustainable land/conservation management
can only happen with the involvement and commitment of local communities.
This could potentially pitch the Commission for Rural Communities
against the Integrated Agency.
4.2 Part 1. Chapter 2. Commission for Rural
Communities
Clause 18 (2) Defining "rural needs"
as just purely social and economic is shortsightedany definition
needs to be underpinned by all three tenets of sustainable development.
Clause 19 (c) This is presumably reference
to rural proofing? If so, rural proofing is not just about looking
at "policies which meet rural needs" but also policies
which have a negative impact on them. The rural proofing function
must be more overtly stated.
4.3 Part 2 Nature Conservation in the UK
Clause 31-32 Giving the JNCC a "UK"
wide remit is to be welcomed. It is an anomaly that Northern Ireland
was outside of it, particularly in terms of a co-ordinated approach
to implementing obligations to the Habitats Directive and developing
the Common Standards Monitoring for favourable conditions.
Clause 33 (2)(b) That the UK agencies
should only have the "desirability of contributing to sustainable
development" is not a commitment to delivering on sustainable
development (c/f Policy Statement P5), neither does it resonate
with the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) commitment (Article 2.3).
4.4 Part 3. Chapter 1. Agreements with Designated
Bodies etc
Clause 41. While this may allow the Integrated
Agency to take-on responsibilities from the RDS, it is not a statutory
commitment to this integration, contrary to the press release
and the Policy Statement (Page 4. Point3 (b))
Clause 42. Obviously non-designated bodies
are not listed therefore it is possible that certain organisations
who may also have a political agenda could become non-designated
bodies, therefore allowing them to perform DEFRA functions. Who
will check the appropriateness of the organisationwill
there be an opportunity to appeal against a non-designated body
being appointed to carry out these functions?
Clauses 41 and 42 effectively take the sense
of direction out of the purpose of this proposed legislation and
remove accountability for delivery. Effectively any Secretary
of State can delegate functions (defined by this piece of proposed
legislation), to any DEFRA designated body. This will create confusion
not clarity (Policy Statement P2 Foreword). Is the purpose really
to weaken DEFRA rather than institute a truly integrated agency?
These clauses "tell the lie" behind the purpose of this
legislation.
Clause 44. Eligible functions include powers
to enter, inspect or take samples. Although the Agency's general
purpose will be to deal with conservation and biodiversity, and
the Commission's general purpose will be to promote and meet the
needs of rural communities, there is a risk that organisations,
who could become non-designated bodies, may abuse their powers.
4.5 Part 3, Chapter 2 Powers to Reform Agricultural
Boards
4.5.1 This section gives enormous, almost
unlimited powers to the appropriate Minister (as it is devolved
matter, this will mean Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers,
Welsh Assembly etc) to dissolve, create and re-create various
agencies and boards with possibly extensive regulatory powers
through secondary legislation. The Alliance opposes more power
moving away from Parliament to Ministries and Quangos, which the
proposed boards are going to be. There is far too much legislation
and regulation done by this method already.
Clause 50 The permissible purposes of boards
introduces the idea of far greater control and regulation to be
exerted over agricultural and related industries. The latter will
presumably mean most food-producing industries, which are already
complaining bitterly about the excessive regulatory burden they
have to carry.
4.5.2 The idea of new boards to improve
efficiency and productivity etc goes against avowed government
and EU objectives of liberating agriculture and other rural industries
from regulation and planning, and encouraging greater market orientation.
The Alliance has always supported all reforms that encourage movement
towards market dependence. We are disappointed to note that with
the Bill the government proposes to reverse that move towards
greater planning and regulation.
4.5.3 We have always maintained that British
agriculture and related industries, particularly the food industries
are potentially highly competitive on the world market. But, in
order to be that, they must not be shackled by the large number
of Quangos, regulations, taxes, levies etc and that the government
clearly sees fit, if this Draft Bill becomes law.
4.6 Part 4 Inland Waterways
The Countryside Alliance supports a co-ordinated
approach to policy where all interests are taken into account
when determining the correct management of the waterway. Where
authorities and other organisations want to determine management
policy, this should be done with consideration to the previous
management undertaken, and with acknowledgment of the best practice
undertaken where appropriate.
The Countryside Alliance
February 2005
|