Memorandum submitted by the National Farmers'
Union (V26)
1. SUMMARY
1.1 The National Farmers' Union (NFU) represents
the interests of 55,000 professional farmers and growers in England
and Wales. Our members are daily involved in running farm and
land-based rural businesses that are increasingly diverse in character
and that use a wide range of services offered by central and local
government and statutory agencies. The effective delivery of these
services is a central concern for the NFU and the Committee's
inquiry a timely opportunity to review the Government's proposals
contained in its Rural Strategy 2004.
1.2 We welcome the publication of the Rural
Strategy 2004. While the Rural White Paper still had currency
as it addressed high level issues of continuing concern, the policy
context has moved on considerably in a relatively short time.
Government initiatives were appearing increasingly dated given
the rapidly evolving policy environment. Last year's agreement
to reform the Common Agricultural Policy is but one example of
the changing nature of policy and practical challenges now facing
rural areas. It is absolutely vital that policies and programmes
are kept under constant review, and that they are based in a robust
understanding of the nature of the problems so they retain both
validity and value. Farming remains at the heart of the rural
economy and the NFU is committed to working with Government at
a national and regional level to ensure a sustainable future for
rural businesses.
1.3 In our submission to the Inquiry we
have focused on three areas of particular interest to the farming
community:
— establishment of an integrated land
management agency;
— streamlining rural funding streams;
and
— delivery mechanisms for the rural
strategy.
2. INTEGRATED
LAND MANAGEMENT
AGENCY
2.1 The Government proposes a range of institutional
changes, the most newsworthy of which is the creation of a new
integrated agency combining English Nature's functions, the landscape,
access and recreation parts of the Countryside Agency and the
environmental functions (eg delivery of Defra's agri-environment
schemes) of the Rural Development Service. We understand that
this will create an agency of over 2,300 staff with national,
regional and local teams and offices.
2.2 It is proposed that the agency will
be an independent non-departmental public body with a remit covering
rural and marine environments and will work to statutory guidance
issued by the Secretary of State, which will set the agency's
remit in a sustainable development context. Primary legislation
will be required to establish the new agency; the Government is
aiming to publish and consult on a draft Bill in spring 2005,
with establishment in 2007.
2.3 In principle we welcome the streamlining
of agency functions is this way, which should result in a better-focused
source of land management advice and regulation for farmers. At
present farmers experience a disjointed approach that overlooks
the synergies between these functions and too often pursue agenda
running in parallel or contradiction to one another. The pursuit
of biodiversity, access and amenity agenda in separation is unhelpful
and confusing. We expect that the new Agency will be able (and
instructed) to take balanced approach that accommodates both its
environmental goals and also seeks to contribute towards farmers'
economic sustainability.
2.4 We envisage that the new organisation
will have a strong local presence and daily contact with farmers.
A deep understanding of day-to-day farm and land management—on
which many goals for the new agency will depend—is therefore
vital. The integration of RDS agri-environment and English Nature
SSSI advisors will have particular advantages to meet this aim.
However, we expect that the understanding of land management will
also be a core theme for the organisation as a whole, rather than
simply a concern for its delivery functions. In this respect it
is vital that the Secretary of State's guidance to the new agency
explains the central importance of farming to the agency's sustainable
development goals.
2.5 The new agency must also seek to build
on the concept of partnership working. Both the Countryside Agency
and English Nature have had experience of working in partnership
and some good examples of co-operation have resulted (eg English
Nature's sponsorship of the NFU's Farming Excellence Awards "Farming
for Wildlife" category). However, we would expect the new
agency to formalise these partnership arrangements at all scales
of the organisation. By doing so it should aim to build in collaborative
working from the outset and understand and act on partners' and
farmers' concerns when developing and delivering work programmes.
We would also argue that having this close connection with those
it seeks to influence would help the Agency to advise Government
on environmental land management policies more effectively.
3. STREAMLINING
RURAL FUNDING
STREAMS
3.1 We understand that Defra's review of
rural funding streams have found well over 100 separate schemes.
Many of these funding streams are duplicating each other, some
are outdated and others under funded. We would agree with Lord
Haskins that the current support landscape is in need of radical
and far reaching review and change. To this end we fully support
the concept that funding should be delivered under one of three
broad themes:
— Rural economic investment.
— Environmental land management.
— Rural community programmes.
3.2 Having said this, a three-pronged approach
must not result in reinforcing a "silo" mentality to
programme delivery. These three strands can be delivered separately,
but also benefit from integration too. Delivery agents and applicants
must have the ability to combine support in innovative ways from
across the funding spectrum via an integrated administrative system.
3.3 With regard to funding schemes we would
make the following observations:
— Scheme identity and focus—our
experience of the early days of the England Rural Development
Plan suggest that farmers (and Defra administrators) found the
"project based schemes" (eg Rural Enterprise Scheme)
more difficult to operate. Misunderstanding about scheme intentions
and eligibility can result in wasted applicants time and higher
costs in weighing up widely varying proposals for their "public
value". Therefore, while there is a logical attraction to
schemes that try to achieve a wide range of policy targets within
a single scheme envelope, we are aware that "simpler"
schemes with a clearer focus offer other advantages such as lower
administration costs, higher throughput and faster decisions for
applicants.
— Scheme application and approval process—it
is frustrating for applicants to have proposals delayed with no
clear process or timescale for decisions. As business development
can depend on scheme application decisions, applicants benefit
from a pre-agreed timescale for scheme processing and single contact
point.
3.4 While grant schemes are only part of
the "support" picture, they occupy a prominent role
in Ministers' attention. We believe that a solitary focus on grant
aid schemes is mistaken, Defra also needs to consider other barriers
to innovation such as a lack of information, facilitation, quality
advice and collaboration within the farming and rural business
community. We expect that the Committee will wish to evaluate
the Government's plans in these areas alongside those for funding
streams—our aim would be for an integrated programme of
support aimed at one or more of the three themes we identify above.
4. DELIVERY MECHANISMS
FOR RURAL
STRATEGY
4.1 We expect the Committee will also wish
to evaluate the Government's proposals to deliver rural economic
development via an enhanced role for Regional Development Agencies
(RDA's). Some have questioned this approach as RDAs have been
perceived to be urban focused. Our experience shows that there
are in fact excellent examples of RDA rural-focused programmes
and partnership working, much of which originated following the
foot and mouth crisis. We believe that an enhanced rural focus
for RDAs will be beneficial because:
— Economic regeneration programmes
will be better integrated across urban and rural areas, and rural
businesses (including farm businesses) should benefit from a consistent
and comprehensive range of business support and advice than is
offered by the Farm business advice network.
— Defra's rural economic funding is
limited in scale, combining it with other funding streams should
leverage an increased level of support for rural areas.
— Rural economic support will have
a clearer focus.
4.2 Having made the case for RDAs, we would
raise one concern, the co-ordination of supra-regional priorities
and investment programmes. While a regional delivery strategy
can often be effective we would question how Government will co-ordinate
priorities that cross two or more regional boundaries.
4.3 We believe the Government has a key
role to play through its Government Offices to ensure the co-ordination
between RDAs and to achieve consistency in the delivery of rural
development policy.
4.4 Rural Priorities Boards—it is
proposed that each Government Office should set up a rural priorities
board to ensure amongst other functions that regional/local policies
deliver sustainable development; activities are properly co-ordinated;
local delivery organisations (such as National Parks) are fully
engaged; and, that rural and urban strategies are mutually supportive.
We believe the role of these Boards and their relationship with
the RDAs will be vital and must be the forum for key stakeholders
to be able to influence rural delivery in each region. We agree
with the Government that it should set out the general principles
for the Boards whilst leaving the detailed operation to each Board.
4.5 We believe the Rural Priority Boards
if correctly constituted and operated remove the need for Rural
Affairs Forums. The Boards will be able to provide the feedback
on rural delivery, which the Government rightly identifies as
a key issue in policy development. Our concern is that there is
the potential for unnecessary duplication and confusion in terms
of the key rural delivery stakeholder group.
4.6 We support the use of local authorities
for delivery at a sub-regional level. We believe this will provide
those in the rural economy with an accessible way to monitor key
delivery issues, such as the co-ordination of local advice and
the time taken to process grant applications. They will also be
in a position to feedback their issues to the Rural Priority Boards
which will shape the policy for the whole region.
23 September 2004
| 
