Natural England

National Park funding - advice to the Government (AP01/39)

FOR DECISION

Background

1. The Agency has a number of Powers and Duties in relation to National Parks both under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and the Environment Act 1995. Section 72 of the 1995 Act places a requirement that the Secretary of State consult the Countryside Agency before determining the amount of National Park grant to be made to a National Park Authority (NPA) and for the purposes for which it is made. This paper provides an assessment of the bids from the NPAs and asks the Board to approve the broad advice on issues affecting Parks as well as the specific allocations within the overall anticipated increase advised by DEFRA. The National Park Grant (NPG) is made to NPAs direct from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) with the benefit of Countryside Agency advice.

2. Last November (paper AP00/44) Agency Board Members discussed a new approach to deciding the annual allocation of NPG based on an objective assessment of need (paper AP00/31). A funding model based on a large indicator set, proved reasonably effective but fell short of perfection and too inflexible to easily accommodate any special circumstances. The use of the model to allocate 100% funds gave wild variations which meant some Parks losing resources. So the model was used to allocate 80% of funds with the remaining 20% balance allocated on a discretionary basis

3. The Agency provided advice on the discretionary element, based on the funding bids from the Parks and as well as suggesting that a floor and ceiling between 2.5% and 10% be used. Even so when the Department allocated resources some additional adjustments were still required. Table 1 at Annex 1 illustrates the last year's (2001/02) funding allocation and table 2 at Annex 1 illustrates the proposed increases for this coming year (2002/03) presuming an increase overall for the NPAs of £1,754,833.

Progress and action

4. Before NPAs submit their bids for additional resources a list of strategic priorities is provided jointly by the Agency and DEFRA. This year they largely reflected Government guidance in the Rural White Paper and are reproduced in  Annex 2. We believe that this advice will remain broadly current over the term of this Parliament, with some updating to reflect current issues, such as the need for rural revival after foot and mouth disease. This will provide stability for NPAs in their understanding of Government priorities.

5. During the current bidding and assessment round Agency staff have worked very closely with DEFRA officials. For the first time we have held a series of individual, face to face meetings with national park representatives. This has given each national park an opportunity to review the first year of the funding model as well as discussing spending proposals, contained in their Best Value Performance Plans (BVPP). The meetings have provided an extremely useful opportunity in helping all to understand the constraints, opportunities and expectations as well as highlighting current and future pressures .

6. The available resources are less than those needed for the NPAs. The Edward's Report, 1991, stated that around £10m extra in real terms were required. About half of that has been achieved. The Agency should continue to press Government to increase funding to the national parks.

Advice to DEFRA

7. This paper seeks agreement for our advice to DEFRA. This year it concentrates on the pressures, best value performance plans and outcomes of the bilateral meetings with the parks. It contains broad advice as well as indicating the amount to be apportioned to each NPA. We were advised by DEFRA in January of this year to plan for an overall increase of a similar magnitude to last year (£1,754,833m).

8. In our advice last year we said that 80% of NPG should be allocated according to the indicators of need in the funding model and the remainder allocated on a discretionary basis for 2001/02 and 2002/03 only. This year our advice is based on an increase totalling £29,675,666 with £23,740,532 distributed according to the 80% indicator set. The remaining 20% discretionary element of £5,935,136 should be allocated by DEFRA taking account of the bids, pressures and priorities identified in Annex 3.

9. We also suggested last year that a floor for increases of not less than inflation (2.5%) and a ceiling of not more than four times inflation (10%) be applied. We recommend keeping to that approach.

10. Our round of meetings also identified some general issues that we should recommend to the current DEFRA led review of National Parks policy: 

• There is a need to introduce consistency across all Parks in the bid documentation, accountancy methods, performance and baseline indicators/statistics as well as simplify the current complex funding process. A tailor made BVPP for NPAs would assist and would allow for comparability of data.
• A case should be developed for Treasury approval for NPAs to borrow. This would assist potential for national parks to match external funding opportunities. 
• A national target for external funding should be developed (e.g. 20% over 5 years). There is a concern that NPAs account for external funding in different ways, but all probably undersell the value of designation to the Park area and its hinterland, particularly in social and economic terms.
• Better monitoring of actions against each year's increased spending allocations should be introduced.
• The joint CA/DEFRA advice on national priorities to NPAs should remain broadly the same, to provide stability while allowing fine tuning to meet changing circumstances.
• Future national park grants need to reflect the additional costs of implementing the access provisions of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2001.  

11. Foot and mouth disease has affected most parks, directly or indirectly and the Agency should press DEFRA to invite the Parks to bid for additional resources to address these specific problems.

Next steps

12. The recommendations from this paper will be offered as Agency advice to the Minister as suggested in a draft letter from the Chairman (Annex 4). 

Annex 1

NATIONAL PARK GRANT

Table 1: 2001/02 allocations (current year)

Table 2: 2002/03 allocations presuming the same increase (£1,754,833) as 01/02. 

NB. The lake District minus discretionary figure was required to make calculations balance.

Annex 2

NATIONAL PARKS FUNDING PRIORITIES and BIDDING 2002/03 

Countryside Agency and DEFRA joint advice

a. Contribute to and prepare for the implementation of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, in particular by establishing local access forums and preparing for increased access to open countryside;

b. identify the demand for a full range of sporting and other recreational activities and consider to what extent these may be accommodated (para 11.3.9 of the Rural White Paper);

c. encourage greater use of and interest in National Parks by all sections of society, especially people with disabilities, people from ethnic minorities, the inner cities and young people (para 11.3.8 of the Rural White Paper);

d. support agricultural and other land management projects which promote National Park purposes, working in partnership with DEFRA, the Countryside Agency, English Nature, English Heritage, Forest Enterprise and other organisations where appropriate. In particular, ensure full use is made of the England Rural Development Plan;

e. support sustainable rural development projects, especially those for sustainable tourism; (reword in light of F&M)

f. seek corporately and individually to develop and promote Lottery schemes to support National Park purposes;

g. continue to develop and implement innovative approaches to integrated traffic management and public transport issues, combined with education and information about the need for such approaches;

h. develop work corporately and individually in order to progress the state of the park indicators and visitor numbers work, as important contributing information to the management of the Parks.

i develop closer working at political and practical levels between NPs and AONBs, in particular fully participate in the influencing initiative to Promote the Value of England's Protected Landscapes to a variety of audiences.

Annex 3

OVERVIEW OF BEST VALUE PERFORMANCE PLANS AND SUMMARY OF BIDS FOR NATIONAL PARK GRANT 2002-2003

This paper provides a brief overview of the Best Value Performance Plans (BVPPs) and an assessment of the individual bids and meetings with National Park Authorities, for financial year 2002-2003. It also shows the total amount each Park has for the current year (Base Line) and the cash bid.

BVPP Overview

The spending proposals contained in BVPPs broadly reflect the advice given to NPAs by the CA & DEFRA on the national strategic priorities. However, there is patchy evidence about progress on State of the Park Indicators work and with the exception of Dartmoor/Exmoor and Yorkshire Dales/North York Moors there seems to be little closer working between the National Parks & AONBs.

All Parks are forging ahead with plans for the CROW act implementation and are actively trying to improve recreational activities for all members of society. Social inclusion, biodiversity and management of an integrated rural economy are also popular themes throughout the plans.

In comparison to last year, there is an increase in the number of activities requiring external funding. Not only are established additional funding sources such as EU and HLF being courted, but other sources such as England Rural Development Plan, Landfill Tax, Leader Plus and partnerships with local businesses are being utilised. Many NPAs are also trying to maximise income generation to boost what they perceive as inadequate core funding.

Bid Overview

Taken as a whole, the National Park Authorities bid over baseline for additional resources contains sound proposals to undertake new areas of work that contribute to a broader social and economic agenda while continuing to deliver the statutory purposes of National Parks. Each Parks bid is summarised below.

Meetings with the Parks Overview

For the first time this year DEFRA and Agency staff met with representatives of each national park.. They were invited to underline current and future pressures which require additional funding. Some of these pressures were outside of the current bid documentation but illustrate the need for additional resources to be made available.

Dartmoor national Park - Baseline £3,127,480 plus Bid £593k

Recommended increase £174,690 (5.6%)

A very professional bid, clearly laid out and matching the priorities identified by CA/DEFRA. Dartmoor have employed an external funding officer, who has already begun to help ease their financial burdens. However, much of the funding they are applying for needs matching funding from the Authority, therefore Dartmoor will be looking for a reasonable grant settlement.

About 50% of their bid for additional money relates specifically to CA/DEFRA funding priorities. The remaining 50% is made up of projects which are very important to the welfare of the Parks, such as the "Moor futures" (an initiative to sustain hill farming & the rural economy), Dartmoor Biodiversity project and the Dartmoor ancient semi-natural woodland & veteran trees work. They are also hoping to spend a reasonable amount on cultural heritage.

Access, social inclusion, sustainable tourism and integrated transport management all feature highly in the bid.

Dartmoor have included a bid of £70,000 for local plan alteration costs (i.e. to fund representation at a public inquiry).

Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority - Baseline £3,442,378 plus Bid £550k

Recommended increase £268,472 (7.8%)

Bid clearly set out against CA/DEFRA advice, with the exception of priority b as no additional funding has been requested for recreational activities and management.

Onus on Countryside and Rights of Way Act Implementation, additional resources required to establish and support staff of local forum and staffing for management of land to be opened for public access.

Funding for a number of projects to promote social inclusion and support sustainable land management in line with Agency priorities is requested. Yorkshire Dales have bid for £20,000 to support the 'Developing Links' project.

Yorkshire Dales have made a relatively high bid for improving access to and management of National Park information for State of the Park reporting and to make NPMP deliver integrated rural development. Also the introduction GIS for data presentation for the NP and partner organisations.

Yorkshire Dales is one of the few National Parks to include a bid for work to develop links with AONBs, in this case with Members of the four regional AONB JACs. Funding is also requested to work with the Nidderdale AONB to develop the 'Dales brand' of local products, which already has support from the European Leader Scheme.

The meeting identified the problem of office accommodation in the northern area of the Park and a requirement of £1.32 million was discussed.

Exmoor National Park Authority - Baseline £2,582,842 plus Bid £500k

Recommended increase £129,142 (5%)

A clearly set out and ambitious bid, about 75% of which is to address and expand on the eight CA/DEFRA funding priorities. Includes a useful priority breakdown into essential additional works to meet statutory requirements (e.g.. CROW Act, Local Plan inquiry), high priority programmes to meet NP purposes and a FMD Local Recovery programme (11%) as well as innovative projects to support integrated traffic management and recreation.

Nature conservation, land management and rural redevelopment all feature highly within Exmoor (totalling 35% of their bid), and they are seeking support to match possible European Funding for regeneration and rural tourism .

Exmoor have a lack of experience and expertise for attracting match funding and are requesting assistance to appoint an External Funding Officer.

During the meeting Exmoor identified pressures with their Local Plan Public Enquiry (£45k) and a legal case on grazing rights  in NPA owned woodland (£30 -£60k)

Lake District National Park Authority - Baseline £4,640,000 plus Bid £700k

Recommended increase £361,920 (7.8%)

The bid sets out good overall ideas to meet priorities but some programmes seem less specific in implementation, e.g. proposed projects for nature conservation and cultural heritage but little detail in terms of schemes to support rural development and land management. The latter are both areas where the Lake District are looking for relatively high financial support, together making up 25% of bid.

£300k of additional funding is requested to support implementation of CROW Act and staff -15 posts to establish an Access Team.

Lake District are looking for additional funds to promote social inclusion and access for disabled visitors and community groups in North West, through an 'Outreach campaign' & 'Local Schools Initiative' and also undertake innovative research for State of Park indicators to study internationally used indicators with a view to UK application.

The Lake District are making a very small bid for funds to support recreation and sporting activities.

Funding is also requested to appoint a Project & Liaison Officer to facilitate information sharing between the authority and AONBs in Cumbria.

During the meeting £100k was identified for the World Heritage Status bid.

Northumberland National Park - Baseline £1,928,560 plus Bid £680k

Recommended increase £183,213 (9.5%)

An ambitious bid, based upon Northumberland's past success in generating income and attracting external funding for its work - although this has lead to a growing reliance upon additional monies being used so that statutory works can be done. There must be some doubt about whether Northumberland can sustain this type of investment for a prolonged period - their bid seeks to replace the reduction in external funding. They also received the smallest NP grant allocation last year and are trying very hard to "draw" extra money this year with a set of good proposals.

Northumberland have set out 4 "visions" for next years work:

1. a predominantly open upland landscape with a true sense of tranquillity and distinct character associated with hill farming activity
2. increased biodiversity overall & a landscape and natural history enhanced by radical restructuring/removal of conifer plantations and extension of native woodland
3. tourism activity is based on the natural/cultural assets of the area and which makes a substantial, positive contribution to the local economy and fosters better understanding between town & country
4. a thriving local economy and community making the National Park a good place to live and work.  

By and large, the projects included under each heading fit the CA/DEFRA funding priorities well. A large amount (£100,000) is requested for CROW implementation. The bid also specifically mentions 2 CA projects (healthy walks and vital villages) where it is hoped to build on the success of local pilot schemes to Park-wide status. 

Improvements in integrated traffic management and public transport schemes also figure highly in the bid.

One of the more interesting elements of the bid is the identification of a scoping research project into how the NPA can work effectively in partnership to promote practical sustainable rural development in the area within, and immediately adjacent to, the Park. The project is due to report in 2001 and the NPA estimate £250,000 will be required to implement its findings.

During the meeting the following were underlined: 

• End of 5b European structural funds (£800k)
• Reamish Valley access agreement (£250k)
• Otterburn decision in favour of MOD will result in additional specialist planning work to assess engineering requirements (£80k P/A x 5 years)  

North York Moors National Park - Baseline £3,565,239 plus Bid £785k

Recommended increase £231,741 (6.5%)

An interesting and very professional bid, although not the easiest to read/extract information from.

The bid is heavily skewed because of problems associated with the ending of EU Objective 5b programme & the delays in implementing successor programmes. This has led to an expected increase of about 10% in the amount requested as NP grant "core" funding over and above the bid for work to be done in 2002-3. However, the bid closely reflects the priorities set out by CA/DEFRA. Very little is requested for direct CROW implementation but a significant rise is noted in the amount bid for rangers & volunteers because of expected CROW effects.

There is a significant rise in development control costs with no obvious explanation.

Other areas of note are: promotion of local products and diversification linked to special qualities of designated landscapes, community conservation areas & village improvement schemes, promotion of integrated transport schemes and the "Moors bus" plus a tourism attitude and perception survey (additional to information gained from UKDVS 2001-2).

The most interesting area of the bid is promoting understanding, where there are some notable social inclusion and healthy lifestyle projects. They are also looking to increase awareness through remote access technology development projects (ie a better web site).

During the meeting legal issues were identified as a potential cost surrounding any upgrading of the Fyllingdales tracking station (Circa £250k)

Broads Authority - Baseline £2,411,261 plus Bid £422k

Recommended increase £156,732 (6.5%)

The Broads face different issues from other Parks as they are managing significant wetlands and are also a navigation authority. Again, not an easy bid to extract information from, however the Broads are also notable in that, like Northumberland, they have become adept at generating significant income to supplement their core grant.

The bid is concerned with issues such as flood alleviation, fen and wetland management and navigation issues. The Broads Authority have tried to minimise the amount of money requested under these headings - significant reductions in bid occur under the heading of "conservation of the natural environment" (reduced by about £85,000). However, they still plan some interesting projects such as a proposal for a biomass project which would bring 250 ha of fens under sustainable management over the next five years. Almost all other headings show a substantial increase.

Some exciting work is programmed in the recreational and social inclusion areas, including the work already begun involving people on the New Deal programme (which they are hoping to expand) and the "Out There" project which they are working on with CA.

During the meeting two items were identified. Disposal of contaminated dredging material in the River Yare (Circa £2.7m) is a large cost pressure . A legal case for changing the public permission for water skiing (Circa £100k).

Peak District National Park - Baseline £6,223,073 plus Bid £995k

Recommended increase £248,923 (4%)

Very detailed objectives to cover the various strands set out in CA/DEFRA priorities.

The Peak District has been very successful at generating a high level of income through its chargeable services, particularly environmental training and through grant aid to supplement its core funding. 

The Authority have developed several challenging project proposals - including 'Moors for the Future' restoration project, Peak District Environmental Quality Mark for local products and services (with CA) - for which external funding is sought from many of the new emerging sources e.g. ERDP, HLF, Objective 2 assistance.

Onus throughout much of the bid is on partnerships, both to secure funding but also on working to allocate funds and develop programmes regionally and with local communities - for transport, regeneration and land management e.g. Land Management Initiative in partnership with CA

In line with many of the other parks a large chunk of funding is requested, about 25% to implement CROW and develop access and recreation.

The Peak District are keen to promote social inclusion, with the onus on developing education rather than improving accessibility, with £40,000 being sought to promote lifelong learning and support several thousand educational visits.

During the meeting the following pressures were highlighted:

• Minerals planning and legal work in dealing with many small troublesome quarry sites (£30k)
• Property/Estate maintenance costs (£30K)