Written evidence submitted by the English
National Parks Authorities Association
1. National Parks contain some of the most
beautiful and remote landscapes to be found in England. Most of
these diverse areas spanning both uplands and lowlands include
unimproved grassland, moorland, heath and bog that depend on livestock
grazing for long-term conservation management. A decline in sympathetic
livestock grazing will directly affect the future of landscape
quality and biodiversity throughout the National Parks, the farming
communities that it supports, and the cultural and historical
heritage that it forms part of and helps to preserve.
2. National Park Authorities therefore recognise
that in order to maintain and enhance the special qualities of
the National Parks for all to enjoy the financial viability of
key livestock farming systems must be secured and awareness must
be raised of the valuable contribution that is made by cattle,
sheep and pony grazing. This submission considers the essential
contribution made by livestock farming in England's upland National
Parks.
ENGLAND'S
NATIONAL PARKS
3. Our National Parks are a truly national
treasure. The 10 National Parks in England are living landscapes
peopled by farmers, others who manage the land and strong rural
communities. Each of the National Parks has a National Park Authority.
These are independent bodies funded by central Government and
have the following two purposes:
— to conserve and enhance the natural beauty,
wildlife and cultural heritage of National Parks; and
— to promote opportunities for the understanding
and enjoyment of the special qualities of National Parks by the
public.
4. In carrying out these purposes, they
also have a duty to seek to foster the economic and social well-being
of local communities within the National Park.
National Park Authorities work with partners
to deliver these aims simultaneously in an integrated manner.
RESPONSES TO
RECOMMENDATIONS IN
CRC REPORT "HIGH
GROUND, HIGH
POTENTIAL"
5. Comment is made on the CRC recommendations
that relate to the future of upland farming.
6. CRC Recommendation 4: ENPAA strongly
supports the proposal to review the current approach to funding
in the uplands with a greater emphasis on rewarding farmers for
managing national assets (CRC 4.1). Pilot projects into the delivery
of "ecosystems services" in the Lake District, Exmoor
and Dartmoor National Parks is being undertaken by Natural England
in partnership with National Park Authorities and, we believe,
should inform the proposed review.
7. ENPAA strongly supports broadening the
concept of income foregone but would prefer recognition, reward,
and development of a new approach to payments (CRC 4.2). EU regulations
already allow for "cost of delivery" to be taken into
account and these provisions should be utilised to a greater extent.
8. National Park Authorities are well placed
to take a bigger role as a delivery body in RDPE and Leader (Axis
4) (CRC 4.4). In the South West, for example, the Regional Development
Agency has supported the establishment of hill farm projects on
Dartmoor and Exmoor National Parks and Bodmin Moor to help increase
uptake in RDPE in the uplands. National Park Authorities have
developed considerable expertise in delivering effective and flexible
grant funding regimes though the Sustainable Development Fund
(SDF) programmes that achieve, social, economic and environmental
outcomes. Moreover we see scope to simplify the administration
for implementation of LEADER, with an enhanced role for locally
based National Park Authorities.
9. National Park Authority experience is
that, with the exception of Axis 2, uptake of RDPE opportunities
within the uplands has been low. A variety of reasons exist for
this including:
— the relatively small scale of upland
farm businesses means that the investment required and complex
application process is perceived as a significant barrier. In
the Peak District National Park a Live & Work Rural Programme
has been established to support farm diversification schemes and
rural business that were on too small a scale to access RDPE funding;
— the lack of integration between axis
1 and 2 has meant that projects that do not deliver a clear financial
outcome do not succeed even if they provide other positive outcomes.
For example, a proposal for equipment purchase etc. to help moorland
management in Exmoor National Park was not supported by RDPE even
though it would have enabled more cost effective delivery of environmental
management objectives;
— some relevant measures such as those
for early retirements for farmers and encouraging new entrants
to farming were excluded from the RDPE even though they are permissible
within the EU regulation and are used in other parts of Europe.
For example, a proposed farming and land management apprenticeship
scheme in Northumberland National Park could not receive RDPE
funding as the potential beneficiaries were not already employed
in farming; and
— the detailed prescriptions that are set
out in the RDPE measures provide a major constraint on the projects
that can be supported and impede the achievement of the axes objectives.
10. CRC Recommendation 5: ENPAA strongly
supports this recommendation and the increased recognition of
the wide variety of public benefits being delivered by the uplands.
Restoration of functioning peatlands is being supported by a number
of water companies including South West Water in Exmoor and Dartmoor.
Proposals for market mechanisms for clean water are also emerging
but are likely to take some time before coming into operation.
We believe that this should be a key aspect of the Government's
forthcoming Water White Paper. We also strongly favour an approach
that extends water quality and carbon management within the CAP.
11. CRC Recommendation 6: ENPAA supports
recommendation 6 and particularly recommendations 6.1 and 6.2.
There is concern in a number of National Parks that approaches
to land management that may be appropriate in one region are not
applicable in another. A series of national prescriptions such
as those set out in Environmental Stewardship schemes provide
a severe limitation on the ability to arrive at locally tailored,
long term approaches to environmental management that fit in with
a farming cycle and deliver biodiversity and other benefits. Natural
England have recognised this issue and the consultation process
that led to a series of options for Upland Entry Level Stewardship
(UELS) that are relevant in the South West as well as in the North
East was widely welcomed.
A NEW APPROACH
TO FUNDING?
12. The current system of farm support is
complex in terms of its structure. The take up of Axis 2 funding
has been high but the delivery of the agrienvironment schemes
is cumbersome. In effect, there are three agri-environment schemes
plus Single Farm Payment each with their own application process.
The other axes of the RDPE should be more accessible for upland
farming businesses. LEADER has worked well at the grass roots
but axes 1 and 3 have provided relatively little benefit.
13. The RDPE could be a real driver for
integrated policy in the uplands but has not been delivered in
a way that allows this. There is a need for RDPE delivery to be
coordinated so that local needs and opportunities are addressed
and delivery should be flexible enough to meet local circumstances.
This means fine grained and tailored arrangements with an emphasis
on collaborative working. The National Park Authorities have demonstrated
their capacity for grass roots delivery and could provide a valuable
service in this respect.
October 2010
| 
