3 An integrated strategy for the uplands
Defining the uplands
17. Many of our witnesses set out compelling
descriptions of the special and unique nature of upland environments,
their communities and their farmers. The NFU referred to the "unique
challenges and opportunities uplands areas face",[34]
and George Dunn, chief executive of the TFA told us that:
The uplands are unique in a number of aspects: they
are physically remote from the rest of the country; the climatic
conditions are variable and quite extreme; they are economically
remote and tend to be hard places from which to make a living;
and the opportunities are very narrow in terms of what you can
do with the land.[35]
Mr Paice gave a similar analysis—he considered
the uplands and hill farming different due to the climate, remoteness
and landscape difficulties and associated restrictions on forms
of farming.[36]
18. Although there is general agreement about
their attributes and characteristics there is no statutory definition
of uplands. The CRC had "struggled" with the question
of defining the uplands, and, like Defra, took the pragmatic approach
of relying, in the main, on the Less Favoured Areas (LFA) boundaries
to define them.[37] Professor
Shucksmith considered that a definition of the uplands would be
useful for the Government for formulating policy and developing
an uplands strategy but the CRC acknowledged that such a definition
would need to be sufficiently flexible to encompass the diversity
of the upland areas.[38]
The NFU and Country Land and Business Association (CLA) seemed
content, from the agricultural point of view, with the use of
LFA boundaries to define uplands, as did the Minister.[39]
Mr Paice told us that "...when we refer to 'the uplands',
we tend to mean the areas called the Less Favoured Areas. It's
not an absolute precise term, but it's fairly close and the one
we tend to work to".[40]
19. Some 2.2 million hectares of land in England
are currently classified as LFA. Of this, 1.8 million hectares
is in agricultural production (this is approximately 17% of the
total agricultural land in England). The LFAs are further divided
into two distinct classifications: Disadvantaged Areas (DAs) or
Severely Disadvantaged Areas (SDAs). For the purpose of the Single
Payment Scheme (SPS) Less Favoured Areas are subdivided into:
English moorland within the Severely Disadvantaged Areas (SDA);
English SDA non-moorland; and, English non-SDA. Moorland is specially
disadvantaged due to higher altitude, harsher climate with a shorter
growing season, low soil fertility, difficult topography, and
remoteness.[41]
20. For the purposes of its inquiry the CRC defined
the uplands as
...an area focused on, but not exclusive to, the
Severely Disadvantaged Areas (SDAs). To capture the majority of
upland communities, and to broaden the range of datasets available
to our Inquiry, we have chosen to include some areas of upland
fringe, defined as those areas designated as Less Favoured Areas
(LFAs) in England (with the exception of the Isles of Scilly).[42]
The CRC went on to note that the descriptors 'disadvantaged'
and 'less favoured' were used by the European Commission to describe
an area's agricultural potential and that they "...do little
to convey the value of the uplands".[43]
The somewhat convoluted formulation of the CRC's definition indicates
the difficulties in defining the uplands. The CRC's definition
also relies upon the European Commission's classifications for
LFAs and SDAs that were created to enable farmers across the whole
European Union to receive payments under the Common Agricultural
Policy to compensate for specific disadvantages in those areas.
21. We consider the uplands
landscapes and communities to be sufficiently exceptional and
distinct to merit particular attention from Government. We recommend
that Defra revisit the question of setting out a statutory UK
or England-specific definition of 'uplands'. A clear, statutory
definition would assist the department in targeting policy and
data collection. Such a definition might use a similar classification
to those currently used in European regulations to define Severely
Disadvantaged Areas and Less Favoured Areas. A Natural Environment
Bill, which may arise from the anticipated Natural Environment
White Paper, may provide an appropriate legislative opportunity
to create a statutory definition for the uplands.
22. In April 2009 the European Commission published
its proposals to change the way Less Favoured Area (LFA) status
(renamed Areas of Natural Handicap, or ANH) is to be awarded.
Under the proposals the current criteria that assess socio-economic
handicaps, such as remoteness from a market, would be replaced
by 'biophysical' indicators, such as climate and soil conditions.[44]
Dr Clark expressed concern about the impact of the reclassification
exercise on farmers in LFAs.[45]
He said that:
I want to see Defra identifying the criteria needed
to define upland areas and less favoured areas where there is
a natural handicap, as the Commission are talking about them,
and making sure they are suited to the UK climate, not just a
central European one which is the current approach that the European
Commission takes.[46]
23. His concerns may be well-founded. Defra described
in written evidence how a simulation of the impact of the Commission's
proposals on England revealed that the new criteria would exclude
areas of the South West and parts of the Welsh borders as it failed
to take account of the UK's "maritime climate" (such
as rainfall patterns).[47]
Defra continues to discuss how the new approach can take the UK's
circumstances into account.[48]
The CLA characterised the process as "a fairly fruitless
statistical exercise", which now involved "an unrewarding
to-ing and fro-ing between Defra and the Commission on how to
tweak their nine biophysical criteria so that it reproduces the
current LFA borders".[49]
24. We are concerned that, in
their current form, the European Commission's proposals for new
criteria to assess Less Favoured Area (LFA) status would exclude
significant areas of England from the additional support they
currently enjoy and will continue to require. In particular we
would not wish the criteria used for any new classification to
exclude areas currently designated LFAs, such as parts of the
South West of England whether on the basis of altitude, climatic
conditions or any other factor. We therefore urge the Government
to put up a robust defence of the English uplands in its discussions
with the European Commission.
A new national strategy for the
uplands
25. The CRC's first recommendation in High
ground, high potential is that there should be "a new
national strategy for the uplands"; which would:
.... provide a coherent framework so that upland
people, businesses and communities can better understand what
they need to do to play their part in protecting and enhancing
the value of these important local assets.[50]
The CRC refer to this strategy several times in their
report, but there is little detail about of what exactly it would
consist. The report states that the strategy should be developed
by the Government and should "be informed by local knowledge
and experience and should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate
the rich diversity of these areas".[51]
Peter Barfoot, Head of Conservation, North York Moors National
Park, said that the uplands face the same challenges and issues
as other rural areas, but they "also face specific challenges
of their own".[52]
He added that a strategy would need to be specific to the uplands
but take account of the variation between upland areas, saying
that "There are national issues relating to uplands, but
there also needs to be flexibility in accepting in detail that
these areas differ".[53]
26. The NFU's written evidence expressed doubts
that the Government had the resources available to develop and
implement a strategy, which may also fall foul of "inter-departmental
conflicts". Rather than a strategy the NFU supported "short
term actions required to address immediate challenges faced in
the uplands".[54]
In oral evidence Dr Clark was more forthright:
Our view is that we really do not need another strategy.
We have stacks of strategies already out there. We look forward
to the work that Defra are doing, but we hope that it will be
a confidence-building coherent policy statement—period.
Let's get on with some action after that. The last thing we need
is another consultation period, a pseudo-White Paper, steering
groups and that sort of thing. We need confidence building so
we feel there is genuine commitment to look at upland areas in
a coherent way and see food production as part of the recipe for
those upland areas.[55]
Dr Stone, Chief Executive, Exmoor National Park,
shared the NFU's doubts about an uplands strategy:
We have all seen lots of strategies, but we want
a very clear statement from Government that the uplands are on
the radar and that ministers are interested in seeing how uplands
and upland communities are thriving. [...] I would add something
along the lines of ensuring that you monitor the state of the
uplands from all three aspects—economy, environment and
community—and that when policy is developed it does so against
the particular barriers to engagement in the uplands. [56]
He added:
There may be challenges in particular areas because
of the nature of their rurality. I do not think we can say there
should just be some upland policies separate from rural ones;
there is a whole spectrum of issues and challenges.[57]
27. The TFA supported the CRC's recommendation
for a comprehensive and integrated strategy for England's uplands.
Its written evidence states that:
There are many agencies, public bodies and other
organisations with an interest in the uplands each of which emphasise
particular aspects of the uplands without seeing the whole picture.
A more integrated approach could deal more effectively with competing
demands and create a more sustainable basis for the way ahead.[58]
Similarly, the CLA's evidence stated that "a
cross government upland strategy must be developed".[59]
William Worsley, President of the CLA, told us that Defra should
"agree a strategy and then get on with implementing it. [...]
Effectively, the work has been done by the CRC and we want to
get on with it."[60]
28. The Minister of State confirmed that Defra
would be producing a "statement of intent" on the uplands
in Spring 2011. He seemed to share the NFU's doubts about the
word "strategy", and anticipated that the document would
set out a national perspective that allowed for local flexibility.
[61] It would,
he told us, contain "serious action points that we can deliver
on."[62]
29. Mindful of our witnesses
strictures that it is time to "get on with it", the
Government should set out an uplands action plan; setting out
its policy objectives, the specific action to be taken to achieve
them, by whom, the timescales for implementation and the scale
and source of the resources available. The action plan should
address the breadth of issues considered in High ground,
high potential, allow for flexibility of approach to
reflect the variation between upland areas and encompass action
to be taken by each Government department.
Leadership
30. In High ground, high potential, the
CRC identified the need to provide "...visible leadership
at a national level to drive genuinely integrated activity across
all of the government departments that have a role to play"
[63] The CRC therefore
recommended that:
The Government should appoint an individual with
lead responsibility for developing and ensuring effective implementation
of the new uplands strategy. This individual should be accountable
to Ministers of BIS, CLG, DECC and DEFRA.[64]
The TFA has expressed concern that following the
abolition of the CRC "...there will not be a sufficient advocate
for the uplands". The Association said that "it is vital
that someone or some agency is given responsibility to take this
work [the CRC's recommendations] forward."[65]
Professor Shucksmith told us that the CRC was not calling for
a 'rural tsar', but rather that "...somebody should have
responsibility in Government [...]somebody who [...] probably
would be a Minister—somebody who would have responsibility".[66]
Dr Burgess told us that he would wish that leadership role taken
on by "...somebody right at the top level of Government,
in the Cabinet Office, for example".[67]
31. William Worsley, President of the CLA, suggested
that a Minister should have specific responsibility for the uplands,
"as somebody to champion and co-ordinate" among government
departments and agencies.[68]
The NFU, however, suggested that "the diversity of the English
uplands and the range of communities present means a single champion
model is unlikely to be appropriate."[69]
Rather the NFU proposes "an uplands panel drawn from business
and social communities across England with a sponsoring Minister";
arguing that "Such a forum would draw on a wider breadth
of knowledge, indicate the seriousness of uplands issues, and
would be more adept at dealing with any conflicts that arise given
the multiple needs of uplands communities."[70]
While not committing himself, the Minister of State said that
he would consider such an approach.[71]
32. Our witnesses agreed on the need for a Minister
to have responsibility for the uplands. In oral evidence, the
Commission for Rural Communities suggested that such a Minister
might reside in the Cabinet Office, which has a co-ordinating
role across Government. A Minister responsible for the uplands
should be immersed in rural and agricultural matters and prepared
to take on other Government departments in pursuit of the best
outcome for the uplands. There is a risk that a Minister based
in the Cabinet Office would be too remote from policy making in
Defra to fulfil this role effectively. If
Defra's uplands strategy is to be successful it is imperative
that the department have sufficient influence across Whitehall
to ensure that the Government as a whole recognise the importance
of the uplands and hill farming. We recommend that a Defra Minister
is given cross-cutting responsibilities for the uplands. That
Minister should establish an effective advisory panel to provide
a breadth of expertise to challenge policy proposals and confront
inertia within Government.
34 Ev 62 Back
35
Q 71 Back
36
Q 170 Back
37
Q 4, Burgess, Shucksmith Back
38
Q 5, Shucksmith, Q4 Burgess Back
39
Qq 99, 164 Back
40
Q 165 Back
41
Ev 76 Back
42
High ground, high potential, page 26 Back
43
High ground, high potential, page 26 Back
44
'EU confirms plans to reform LFA support', Farmers Guardian,
21 April 2009 Back
45
Q 99 Back
46
Q 116 Back
47
Ev 83 Back
48
Ev 83 Back
49
Ev 61 Back
50
High ground, high potential, p 11 Back
51
High ground, high potential, p 108 Back
52
Q 140 Back
53
Q 140 Back
54
Ev 63 Back
55
Q 113 Back
56
Q 138 Back
57
Q 139 Back
58
Ev 53 Back
59
Ev 58 Back
60
Q 113 Back
61
Qq 178-179 Back
62
Qq 169, 178-179 Back
63
High ground, high potential, p 11 Back
64
High ground, high potential, p 11 Back
65
Ev 53 Back
66
Q 21 Back
67
Q 21 Back
68
Q 101 Back
69
Ev 63 Back
70
Ev 63 Back
71
Q 181 Back
| 
