Breadcrumbs
NATIONAL PARK POLICY REVIEW (AP01/45)
FOR DECISION
Recommendations :
|
Relevance to Strategy and Corporate Plan:
|
Staff and financial implications:
|
Main issues to concern the Board:
|
Background
1. Review terms and outcomes. The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is undertaking a review of national park authorities and the Broads Authority. It has been set up because these authorities have hitherto escaped the FMPR (Finance and Management Performance Review) process, which puts non-departmental public bodies under the spotlight every 5 years or so. But it is not an FMPR, because these are hybrid bodies also subject to the various reviews deriving from their status as local authorities.
2. The aim of the review is to find ways of improving the workings of the National Park Authorities and the Broads Authority, the framework within which they operate and their relationships with partners and other stakeholders. The focus will be on the authorities' strategic powers and constraints, rather than on their internal administration and management (which best value reviews would cover). DEFRA have invited views on four main themes - policy; governance; sponsorship and resources. The terms of reference are detailed in Annex 1.
3. Board discussion of these issues. A seminar on the issues was held immediately after the Board meeting in Kings Lynn on 18 October to enable members to discuss the issues raised in the review and to give steers for this paper. Annex 2 includes a copy of the presentation, the questions addressed and the conclusions reached. The paper also takes account of some ideas stimulated at the recent regular meeting between the Agency and National Park Officers.
Relevant Powers or Duties
4. Annex 3 describes the powers and duties of the Countryside Agency in relation to national parks under the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act and the 1995 Environment Act.Parliament has clearly established the Agency as the statutory "regulator" of national parks - although the term was not in wide use at the time. But in practice, a great deal more collaborative work goes on with the parks to spread good practice - to our mutual benefit.
Review context
5. The last major review of National Parks was launched in 1989, when the Countryside Commission established a review panel under Professor Ron Edwards. Its report, ' Fit for the Future ', recommended changes to the law and more resources. The legal recommendations were largely implemented in the 1995 Environment Act. The grant-in-aid to national parks is higher now; it falls short of Edwards' recommendations, but is supplemented by other income sources such as the lottery and European programmes not available then. The present review provides an important opportunity for the Agency to evaluate the changes brought about by the 1995 Act and to consider the effectiveness of National Parks today in achieving their purposes.
Proposals
6. The proposals in this paper are based on the detailed points made in discussion at the Board seminar on 18 October. The main points are set out below under the four main review headings of policy, governance, sponsorship and resources (with subheadings in italics). These are included in the draft formal submission to DEFRA at annex 4.
National Park policy issues
7. The role of the NPAs as set out in legislation and the extent to which they are able to deliver Government policies: Since the 1995 Act, we are aware of no legislative obstacles to the delivery of the outcomes the Government seeks in national parks. The authorities themselves have often come suggested that the law is not sufficiently clear about theweight to give their socio economic duty whilst pursuing their purposes. In our view the Edwards report got it right where it said that in pursuing the national park purposes of conservation and understanding and enjoyment 'the national park authorities should support the appropriate agencies in fostering the social and economic well-being of the communities within the national park, in ways which are compatible with the purposes for which national parks are designated'. This still holds good and no legislative change is needed to secure it. An update to government policy guidance to national park authorities (Circular 12/96) might emphasise that spending on socio economic objectives is a legitimate part of achieving national park purposes. It might also make clear the role the Government envisages regional development agencies should have in promoting rural economic development in the national parks and indeed in promoting the national parks as regional economic assets in their own right.
8. Parks have generally demonstrated a strong willingness and ability to deliver government policy objectives. The main route to secure this is through the Countryside Agency's own advice to the government and national park authorities on the preparation of their plans. We have evidence that the park authorities are responding to the guidance in their plans and in action on the ground. Those promoting new initiatives in government departments might consider how national parks can serve as test beds for new ideas and approaches.
9. For example, some national park authorities have been involved in the implementation of agri-environment schemes, the Countryside Agency's own Land Management Initiative, and in structural funds programmes such as Objective 5b. Looking forward, it might be possible for the national park authorities to be the lead interface with farmers in a streamlined delivery of government grants, advice and regulation - calling in other experts (English Nature, Environment Agency, State Veterinary Service, Rural Development Service, Small Business Service) as necessary. This would be a good demonstration of "joined up government" in response to Lord Haskins' criticisms of the sheer number of agencies active on the ground in Cumbria.
10. There have been a few instances where national park authorities have seemed to some people to take a more parochial approach to issues than their national remit might suggest. These have been very much the exception, however, and do not themselves justify new legislation or policy.
11. Functions of the authorities: We do not believe that NPAs need new statutory functions. National park authorities could, however, be more forward looking and show leadership on major national issues such as social inclusion and global warming. Close collaboration with local authorities on matters such as PRoW should continue, as should collaboration with the Countryside Agency on access, national trails, rural transport and other programmes.
12. The authorities' organisation, culture and relationship with other organisations including Government Departments, statutory agencies, local authorities, other public bodies, voluntary organisations, business organisations and also their role in the regional agenda: national park authorities should adopt best practice emerging from the government's modernisation agenda for local government as a means of streamlining the decision making process. This should allow members to concentrate on strategic issues and key service delivery and reduce the number of meetings that require a full attendance, which in some parks is relatively large.
13. Section 62 of the Environment Act 1995 places a duty (extended to the Broads by the 2000 CRoW Act) on all 'relevant authorities' to have regard to National Park purposes in the decisions they make and the work they carry out. However this duty has rarely been seen to bite. National parks should approach all these relevant authorities to explain what this seems to require of them, and should publish annual public compliance or "stewardship" reports (a kind of "national park proofing"). The Countryside Agency might then co-ordinate an overview report and recommend any action needed by the Government.
14. National park authorities should seek to cultivate positive working relationships with both regional (eg RDAs, Government Offices, RTBs) and sub regional bodies (eg local strategic partnerships). They offer potential funding sources and provide partnership vehicles for securing local action. A clear joint steer from DEFRA, DTLR & DTI could reinforce the Government's expectations of national parks in the emerging regional agenda.
15. The authorities' planning and development control arrangements, and their role in terms of sustainable development and the achievement of national park objectives: We believe that national park authorities' current powers and responsibilities are necessary to secure national park purposes. There is, however, scope for achieving better joint working with local authorities by placing greater emphasis on schemes of delegation for development control casework.
16. The role of National Park Authorities and the Broads Authority as models for the sustainable management of the wider countryside: There is significant potential for national parks to spread good practice and act as beacons of excellence for the wider countryside. This is partly constrained by resources but also because NPAs have no formal role or obligation to act outside their boundaries - other than in pursuing their purposes. The Agency believes that Parks should be encouraged to share technical support and assistance to other areas, particularly AONBs, through partnerships outside their boundaries and that guidance should make this explicit.
National Park governance issues.
17. The structure of authorities and their accountability: The Environment Act 1995 changed the balance of membership to bring an increase in appointees from district and parish councils. This has strengthened the local community's contribution to the administration of national parks. The change in the balance between local and national representation has however, increased the risk thatlocal interests can appear to override the national purposes of the national parks. Some locally appointed members have seen their role as defending their constituents. In extremis, this could skew national park authority actions to the pursuit of local interests, while discussion and action on how to serve the national interests takes second place.
18. This position confuses the accountability of national park authorities. Currently it is difficult to see to whom NPAs are accountable. While local authorities are accountable to electors via the democratic process, the same is not true of the members they then appoint to national park authorities. At the same time, all the funds deployed by the authorities come from central government (through the 75% grant-in-aid and through the fully compensated element coming from local authorities and reflected in the block grant standard spending assessments). In those circumstances, it might be more transparent to regard the national park authorities as non departmental public bodies, appointed by and accountable to the Secretary of State. The Agency would be pleased to discuss with the review team the role we might perform in helping the Secretary of State to exercise any new powers in this respect, and in particular how best to draw on a pool of nominations from local authorities to create an authority on which all the necessary skills and experience are represented in its membership.
19.The selection, appointment, training and performance of all members: The selection and appointment of Secretary of State appointees has improved of late with better emphasis on ensuring a range of skills and backgrounds. However an improved system for reaching and encouraging the right kind of applicants is needed and the timetable for the annual process should be brought forward. Currently only the Secretary of State appointees have fixed terms (usually 3 years with a maximum of three terms). We would like to see all categories of NPA Membership time limited in the same way, in accordance with general guidance from the Commissioner of Public Appointments. The appointment of parish council members should also be open and follow a recognised democratic electoral process. The Countryside Agency has recently been working with the NPAs to develop a comprehensive training and development process for Members and we would like to see this become a compulsory training programme for all Members. We also suggest that in line with other public bodies all Members should be appraised annually .
National Park sponsorship issues.
20. The current role of DEFRA's Countryside Division, other Government departments and the Countryside Agency: The current roles performed by DEFRA'S CYD and the Agency contain some overlaps ( eg. funding ) but in other ways are complementary. The Agency needs to continue to serve as the arms' length statutory "regulator". Other government departments are less engaged with national parks and should be encouraged to view NPAs as an important national asset which may be able to assist them to achieve some of their policy objectives in and around park boundaries.
National Park resources issues.
21. Sources and levels of funding: The National Park Grant (NPG) is made to NPAs directly from DEFRA with the benefit of Countryside Agency advice.Funds for NPAs come 100% from DEFRA; 75% through the NPG and 25% via the constituent local authorities, fully reflected in their Standard Spending Assessments. This is a cumbersome paper exercise that should be changed to make it clear that NPs are funded 100% by central Government and that there is no actual local authority contribution.
22. The Agency has previously advised DEFRA on a number of points concerning resource issues, contained in a letter to the Rt. Hon. Alun Michael MP following the Boards decision on National Park funding, which it may wish to consider as part of this Review. These points are covered for completeness in the draft letter at annex 4.
23. The recent increases in National Park grant are very important. But there is still a need to continue to achieve the levels estimated as needed in the Edwards' Report (adjusted for inflation). Additionally the national parks need to be funded to implement the CRoW Act access provisions, alongside local authorities for other areas. In conjunction with this there is a need for better monitoring systems that are capable of tracking, in a consistent way, the additional outcomes being achieved as a result of real increases in funding.
24. The application of the funding formula for National Park Grant: The funding formula used this year and last on a two year trial basis has proved unsatisfactory, complex, inflexible and opaque. A simple, equitable and transparent system is needed . A necessary element would be the introduction of consistency across all Parks in the bid documentation, accountancy methods, performance, baseline indicators etc. A tailor-made Best Value Performance Plan for NPAs would also assist comparability and funding and performance should be linked, as with AONBs. This would bring consistency within the English protected area family.
25. There appears to be some duplication of effort between the Agency (in advising the Department on the distribution of national park grant) and the Department itself. This might be avoided by applying the approach that has worked well for some years in Wales, where the Welsh Assembly sets a ring-fenced sum for all the national parks and the Countryside Council for Wales distributes the sum between the national parks. The Agency would be pleased to play a role in devising a new funding system perhaps drawing upon our experience with AONBs .
Risks and mitigation measures
26. We do not believe that there are any financial risks to the Agency in offering this advice to the Government.
Annex 1
DEFRA have formally sought views on:
- the role of the National Park Authorities and the Broads Authority as set out in the legislation including the Environment Act 1995, the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and the extent to which they are able to deliver Government policies;
- functions of the authorities;
- the authorities' organisation, culture and relationship with other organisations including: Government departments, statutory agencies, local authorities, other public bodies, voluntary organisations, business organisations and also their role in the regional agenda;
- the authorities' planning and development control arrangements, and their role in terms of sustainable development and the achievement of national park objectives;
- the role of National Park Authorities and the Broads Authority as models for the sustainable management of the wider countryside.
- the structure of the authorities and their accountability;
- the selection, appointment, training and performance of all members.
- the current role of DEFRA's Countryside Division, other Government departments, and the Countryside Agency.
- sources and levels of funding;
- the application of the funding formula for National Park Grant.
Annex 2
Board Seminar Presentation Kings Lynn 18 October 2001
Introduction - Jon Tomlinson
The purpose of the seminar is to ensure members understand the concept and substance of the review fully discuss the issues raised in the review give sufficient steer to officers to allow them to prepare a paper for discussion at the November Board meeting
Context - Jon Tomlinson
The post '95 relationship with NPs in a changed world.
Governance issues following the Yorkshire Dales NP experience
10 years on from the Edwards Report.
Funding improvements
Enlargement of the National Park family and its implications
NPs and their relationship to the wider countryside, AONBs and the CRoW Act
DEFRA are inviting views on four themes:
Policy
Governance
Sponsorship
Resources
The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 empowers the Agency to make orders designating National Parks and AONBs, and to review their boundaries. It also places on us general duties to:
recommend to ministers action needed under the act and other legislation to secure National Park purposes;
keep under review progress made in accomplishing NP purposes, and make representations to ministers or local authorities on any matter affecting accomplishment of these purposes;
give advice on the administration of NPs;
assist NPAs in formulating proposals on how they exercise their powers to deliver access, recreation and certain visitor facilities;
give advice (where asked) on development control proposals affecting land in NPs; (NB. We rarely comment on DC cases)
make recommendations to ministers over any development control cases that appear to be inconsistent with NP purposes;
advise ministers on the general nature of actions needed to secure NP purposes for land in NPs prior to development proposals affecting the same land being considered by the minister in question;
advise the Minister on powers of direction or enforcement open to him in cases where the Agencies recommendations or advice given under any of the preceding bullet points looks like not being given effect.
advise the Minister on powers of direction or enforcement open to him in cases where the Agencies recommendations or advice given under any of the preceding bullet points looks like not being given effect.
Part II Section 9 of the same act requires NPAs to consult us and take account of our views when producing development plans or alterations to same. We also have certain general duties relating to matters of natural beauty whether within designated areas or not.
The 1995 Environment Act subsumes many of the provisions of NPACA 1949 simply changing the context from National Park Planning Boards to NPAs. Responsibilities placed on the Agency by the 1995 Act include acting as a consultee when:
NPAs give notice to us whenever they are proposing to adopt, publish or review a development plan or NP Management Plan they have responsibility for.
DEFRA is deciding on allocation of the National Park Grant to individual authorities.
The Secretary of State decides who to appoint as new NPA members, or as a National Park Office
assess NPA spending plans and advise DEFRA on NPA Grant allocation
manage the process of selecting SoS appointments to NPAs
appoint Members onto the Broads Authority in addition to the SoS appointees
provide induction and ongoing NPA Member training
develop programmes of research and experimentation (in partnership with NPAs)
provide good advice, co-ordination, influence and expertise
advise on and operate the selection process for SoS appointments to NPAs as well as appoint Agency Members to the Broads Authority
comment on management plans and development plans
comment on development proposals (rarely)
boundary reviews and creation of new NPs- work together on joint projects (e.g. LMIs) and on joint influencing tasks (e.g. post FMD recovery plans)
have lead responsibility for a particular NP & represent interests
chair SoS appointment interview panels
involved in National Park Officer appointment process
lead NP debate
steer NP member training
the role of National Park Authorities (NPAs) as set out in the legislation, and the extent to which they are able to deliver Government policies;
functions of the NPAs
their organisation, culture and relationship with other organisations;
the NPAs planning and development control arrangements, and their role in terms of sustainable development and the achievement of national park objectives;
the role of NPAs as models for the management of the wider countryside
Section 61 of the Environment Act of 1995 created NPAs as single purpose local Authorities with the job to:
to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Parks; and
to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities (of the Parks) by the public.
and in pursuing the Purposes the National Park Authority has a duty to : "seek to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities within the National Park, but without incurring significant expenditure in doing so and shall co-operate with local authorities and public bodies whose function includes the promotion of economic or social development within the area of the National Park."
Should regular monitoring of all Government departments, statutory agencies and public bodies be undertaken by DEFRA to assess their success in achieving the section 62 duty. Should this be published as a public document.
To what extent are NPAs able to deliver Government policies?
What, if any, changes would make the Parks more effective?
What future role do NPs have in regional governance?
Should one of the outcomes of this Review be an update of circular 12/96 and reaffirmation of NP Purposes?
How can the Agency make the most of its national role with the family of National Parks (and AONBs)?
the role of National Park Authorities (NPAs) as set out in the legislation, and the extent to which they are able to deliver Government policies;
functions of the NPAs
their organisation, culture and relationship with other organisations;
the NPAs planning and development control arrangements, and their role in terms of sustainable development and the achievement of national park objectives;
the role of NPAs as models for the management of the wider countryside
the structure of the authorities and their accountability;
the selection, appointment, training and performance of all members.
Is the structure of authorities and their accountabilities correct?
What changes could be made to improve performance?
NPs are national institutions but having local governance is one of the main tensions (each NPA is an independent/autonomous single purpose local authority). How can the national/local dimension be made to work better?
How can we encourage Local Gov. NPA Members to see and act with the bigger picture in mind, promoting decision making which supports NP Purposes.
Do you wish to see a different approach to Member appointments (including a uniform Parish Council election process) and introduction of individual contracts including code of conduct, member pledge & decision test?
Should there be a compulsory formal induction and training programme for all members of the NPA?
Should NPAs be able to appoint an independent chairman if it wished to do so?
the structure of the authorities and their accountability;
the selection, appointment, training and performance of all members
the current role of DEFRA's Countryside Division, other Government departments, and the Countryside Agency
We currently act as an Agent of DEFRA running a recruitment process for Secretary of State Appointees to NPAs - do we still want to do this?
We currently advise on individual NPA funds - should we continue to do this and why?
We are looking to help NPAs act as "spearheads" for sustainable development. Are we and they comfortable about this?
What value do we bring to national parks for (a) the NPAs and (b) the nation?
Are the present sponsorship arrangements for the National Parks and the Broads right for current and future needs, or could improvements be made? If so what are these and why should the changes be made?
the current role of DEFRA's Countryside Division, other Government departments, and the Countryside Agency
sources and levels of funding
the application of the funding formula for National Park Grant
How can Parks make the most of the range of funding streams currently available to them e.g. Lottery, EU, Single Regeneration Budget grants?
Are the sources and levels of funding to parks adequate? How should their needs be determined and met?
Should DEFRA and other Government Departments delegate budgets e.g. ESA/ Stewardship to the NPAs to create "one stop shops"?
Is it right to presume that future national park grants need to reflect the additional costs of implementing the access provisions of the CRoW Act 2000?
sources and levels of funding
the application of the funding formula for National Park Grant
Key Steers from Board at the Seminar
Policy
the role of the National Park Authorities and the Broads Authority as set out in the legislation including the Environment Act 1995, the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and the extent to which they are able to deliver Government policies;
Key steers:
A stepped/priority approach to the Purposes, underlining Conservation first, Recreation second with the ability for NPAs to increase spending on the socio economic duty third (but not 3rd purpose) to make a real difference
DEFRA to assess and publish findings on how other bodies further and support NP purposes under section 62.
functions of the authorities;
Key steers:
That NPAs be more forward and wider looking particularly on major issues such as global warming
the authorities' organisation, culture and relationship with other organisations including: Government departments, statutory agencies, local authorities, other public bodies, voluntary organisations, business organisations and also their role in the regional agenda;
Key steers:
That NPAs forge close links with Regional Bodies and that NPAs are recognised by those bodies as key and important Regional players
the authorities' planning and development control arrangements, and their role in terms of sustainable development and the achievement of national park objectives;
Key steers:
That the current planning arrangements are OK but to ensure that they sit within the Best Value approach. Also that NPAs should have a tailor made Best Value Performance Plan to suit their small scale.
the role of National Park Authorities and the Broads Authority as models for the sustainable management of the wider countryside.
Key steers:
That NPAs are good vehicles for experimentation (currently Rural Revival but there are other subjects) and are allowed to become competent authorities, for delegation, to deliver the England RDR/2nd pillar of the CAP
Governance
the structure of the authorities and their accountability;
Key steers:
That modernisation of NPAs, like Local Authorities, should proceed rapidly including performance monitoring
That there should be clarity of accountability and perhaps two options could be examined. One that the Countryside Agency has an overseeing/supervisory role (held by DEFRA but discharged to the CA) and the second option that Nps become NDPBs
There is a need to introduce more consistency across all Parks in the bid documentation, accountancy methods, performance and baseline indicators/statistics. We believe there is a case for designing a tailor made BVPP for National Parks;
the selection, appointment, training and performance of all members.
Key steers:
That the Parish Council appointment process is democratic
That all Members of an NPA sign pledge or have a contract to uphold park purposes
There should be appraisal of all NPA Members, compulsory training and all appointments be time limited
That the member appointment processes for the Broads Authority be made the same as the other NPAs
Sponsorship
the current role of DEFRA's Countryside Division, other Government departments, and the Countryside Agency.
Key steers:
Accountability on all public bodies to uphold/further NP purposes (section 62)
That the CA continues to operate the SoS appointment process but with some refinements
That NPAs have a valuable role as exemplars but they must actively take their good practice and implement beyond their boundaries - less constrained by lines on map operations
Resources
sources and levels of funding;
Key steers:
If the Countryside Agency has an overseeing/supervisory role (held by DEFRA but discharged to the CA) the cash for NPAs could come from DEFRA to the Agency for distribution (like AONBs/Welsh)
Combine Agri-environment cash
NPA bids to be geared to deliver the Governments priorities as well as an ability to respond to and deliver a regional agenda
That the joint CA/DEFRA advice on national priorities to NPAs should cover a longer period (perhaps 3 years ) to assist Parks to plan over a longer time period and better value for money;
Parks to receive additional resources for implementing CRoW access provisions
Press Government for increases to NPAs of around £5m during the next spending review (completing the Edward's review resource needs)
Consideration should be given to whether National Parks should be given powers to borrow money. The risks and opportunities should be explored
External funding varies considerably between National Parks at present and is sometimes accounted for in different ways . It may be worth considering whether national targets should be agreed with links to the annual funding settlement
Better monitoring systems are required to be able to track in a consistent way the additional outcomes being achieved as a result of real increases in funding
the application of the funding formula for National Park Grant.
Key steers:
Replace the current, less than ideal, funding formula quickly with a simple, transparent funding formula. Developed and agreed by all which is comparable to the one developed for AONBs
Annex 3
The Powers and Duties of the Countryside Agency in Relation to National Parks.
The Powers and Duties of the Countryside Agency in relation to National Parks
are essentially set out in two Acts, the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act and the 1995 Environment Act. The '49 Act charges the Agency to:
- recommend to ministers action needed under the act and other legislation to secure National Park purposes;
- keep under review progress made in accomplishing NP purposes, and make representations to ministers or local authorities on any matter affecting accomplishment of these purpose;
- give advice on the administration of NPs;
- assist NPAs in formulating proposals on how they exercise their powers to deliver access, recreation and certain visitor facilities;
- give advice (where asked) on development control proposals affecting land in NPs;
- make recommendations to ministers over any development control cases that appear to be inconsistent with NP purposes;
- advise ministers on the general nature of actions needed to secure NP purposes for land in NPs prior to development proposals affecting the same land being considered by the minister in question;
- advise the Minister on powers of direction or enforcement open to him in cases where the Agencies recommendations or advice given under any of the preceding bullet points looks like not being given effect.
Part II Section 9 of the same act requires NPAs to consult us and take account of our views when producing or altering development plans.
The 1995 Environment Act subsumes many of the provisions of NPACA 1949 simply changing the context from National Park Planning Boards to National Park Authorities. Responsibilities placed on the Agency by the 1995 Act include acting as consultee when:
- NPAs give notice to us whenever they are proposing to adopt, publish or review a development plan or NP Management Plan they have responsibility for.
- DEFRA is deciding on allocation of the National Park Grant to individual authorities.
- The Secretary of State decides who to appoint as new NPA members, or as a National Park Officer, and;.
- Assisting NPAs in formulating proposals on how they exercise their powers to advise the Minister on powers of direction or enforcement open to him in cases where the Agencies recommendations or advice given under any of the preceding bullet points looks like not being given effect.
The 1995 Environment Act subsumes many of the provisions of NPACA 1949 simply changing the context from National Park Planning Boards to National Park Authorities. Responsibilities placed on the Agency by the 1995 Act include acting as consultee when:
- NPAs give notice to us whenever they are proposing to adopt, publish or review a development plan or NP Management Plan they have responsibility for.
- DEFRA is deciding on allocation of the National Park Grant to individual authorities.
- The Secretary of State decides who to appoint as new NPA members, or as a National Park Officer
a. Headquarters
- assess NPA spending plans and advise DEFRA on NPA Grant allocation
- manage the process of selecting SoS appointments to NPAs
- appoint Members onto the Broads Authority in addition to the SoS appointees
- provide induction and ongoing NPA Member training
- develop programmes of research and experimentation (in partnership with NPAs)
- provide good advice, co-ordination, influence and expertise
b. Regions
- advise on and operate the selection process for SoS appointments to NPAs as well as appoint Agency Members to the Broads Authority
- comment on management plans and development plans
- comment on development proposals (rarely)
- boundary reviews and creation of new NPs- work together on joint projects (e.g. LMIs) and on joint influencing tasks (e.g. post FMD recovery plans)
c. Board Members
- have lead responsibility for a particular NP & represent interests
- chair SoS appointment interview panels
- involved in National Park Officer appointment process
- lead NP debate
- steer NP member training
Annex 4
Draft Submission to DEFRA, Countryside Division:
Introduction
The current Review is timely since it is now ten years since the publication of the Edwards Report and six years since the 1995 Environment Act which went some way towards meeting the Edwards Report recommendations.
As a consequence of its many statutory responsibilities in regard to national parks, the Agency has the opportunity to observe national parks at work. They have responded well to the improvements that recent legislation and the very welcome increase in funding - which we are pleased to see is steadily working towards the target set by Edwards - have brought, but there are changes which we would like to see and which this review gives us an opportunity to promote. Our views are detailed below with the bullet point recommendations made under the four review themes of policy, governance, sponsorship and resources.
Policy
The '95 Environment Act adds to the twin national park purposes a 'duty' to "seek and foster the economic and social well-being of local communities within the National Park, but without incurring significant expenditure in doing so." The constraint "without incurring significant expenditure" was designed to ensure this new duty was not pursued to the neglect or detriment of the National Park's primary purposes. However such socio-economic fostering is often essential to promoting and sustaining national park purposes. We recommend a return to the recommendation of the Edwards Report which says that in pursuance of the national park purpose "the National Park Authorities should support the appropriate agencies in fostering the social and economic well-being of the communities within the national park, in ways which are compatible with the purposes for which national parks are designated" and we recommend greater discretion for National Park Authorities on their spending on social and economic objectives so long as they are a means to achieving national park purposes.
National Park Management Plans are also a requirement of the '95 Act. However there is no actual accountability for the quality of or adherence to Park Plan policies (other than Planning) on decision making. Park Management Plans, as a plan for the Park and not just the Authority, should be given more strength and ownership by key partners and other authorities. Particularly it should be a way of bringing public bodies to account for what they have spent and done to achieve NP purposes.
Allied to this, Section 62 of the same Act places a duty (extended to the Broads by the 2000 CRoW Act) on all "relevant authorities" to have regard to National Park purposes in the decisions they make and the work they carry out. Although a powerful duty, which cross cuts several key bodies and policy areas, it has rarely been seen to bite, largely because of a lack of awareness among "relevant authorities." We'd value working with your Department to ensure there is monitoring and enforcement of this duty.
Lastly, development control is seen as the negative side to planning and, in the particular circumstances and purposes of national parks, needs to be balanced by a positive, helpful side. A facilitated ability for NPAs to administer and deliver, within their parks, national funding schemes such as the England RDR/2nd pillar of the CAP, which they are well capable of delivering and integrating with other funding opportunities to provide a 'one stop shop,' and to be considered good vehicles for experimentation - Rural Revival etc.- would help this positive side and better equip them with the tools to meet performance targets.
Policy recommendations.
- A stepped/priority approach to the National Park purposes - an extension to the Sandford Principle - underlining the primacy of conservation followed by recreation followed by the socio-economic duty third (but not 3rd purpose) with an ability for NPAs to increase spending on the socio economic duty.
- Greater enforcement of the Section 62 duty with DEFRA assessing and publishing findings on how other bodies are furthering and supporting NP purposes.
- Closer links with Regional Bodies with NPAs recognised by those bodies as key and important regional players.
- An underlined need for current planning arrangements in national parks to better sit within the Best Value approach.
- Best Value Performance Plans for NPAs that better to suit their small scale.
- A facilitated ability for NPAs to administer and deliver, within their parks, national funding schemes such as the England RDR/2nd pillar of the CAP and to be considered good vehicles for experimentation - Rural Revival etc.
- Encouragement to NPAs to be more forward and wider looking particularly on major issues such as social inclusion and global warming.
Governance
Among the changes made by the '95 Environment Act' was a change to the balance of National Park Membership brought about through increasing appointees from District and Parish Councils. We welcome this strengthening of the local community's contribution to the purposes of national parks. However this change in the balance between local and national representation makes it all the more necessary to put in place devices which will ensure that locally appointed Members do not see their role as defending their constituent's interests to the extent that local interests dominate national interests.
National parks are national assets managed for the nation for the enjoyment of the nation with 100% central government funding. It is important that this broader vision and the need to look outside of national park boundaries, to serve our urban communities, to play a part in the Government's social exclusion programme and its regional agenda are understood and reflected in the management of our national parks. We make a number of recommendations to better achieve this balance between local and national interests in national parks.
Governance Recommendations
- That the Parish Council appointment process is open and democratic.
- That all Members of an NPA sign up to national park purposes through a form of contract to uphold park purposes.
- There should be a rigorous appraisal of all NPA Members, compulsory training and with all appointments time limited.
- That the member appointment processes for the Broads Authority be made the same as the other NPAs.
- That there are agreed programmes of work to reflect the national interest in national parks.
- The modernisation of NPAs, like Local Authorities, should proceed rapidly including performance monitoring.
The conflict between national and local interests came to the fore in two well reported national parks and highlighted a major concern for us which is the lack of clear accountability in national parks. At present there is no system for ensuring national parks and national park Members act in the national interest. NPAs should be accountable to the Secretary of State. The Agency's role is weak in this respect. A useful outcome for the review would be a decision on what, if any, role the Agency should play in ensuring accountability, compliance with high standards and a meeting of a national agenda to reflect national funding.
The Agency is prepared to accept such a role , a difficult role, if offered it and resourced to take it on, but any such supervisory role without sanction to ensure compliance is likely to be ineffective. The major sanction is the distribution of central government funding to the national parks. Funding and performance should be linked and an effective supervisory role would need to be linked to funding control directly or indirectly.
The Government's CroW Act gives the Agency that role for AONBs; makes the link between performance and funding with DEFRA delegating funding responsibility to the Agency. Taking the same approach with national parks would bring a consistent approach for Protected Areas in England and achieve compatibility and comparability between national parks and AONBs - however we are sensitive to how NPAs may view this and discussions and consensus must be reached on the best way forward.
Sponsorship recommendations
- There is a need to ensure greater accountability and consistency in the Department's dealings with the Parks. An option would be that the Countryside Agency's regulatory role is linked to funding control directly or indirectly. This could be achieved through a closer working relationship between DEFRA and the CA or by DEFRA delegating funding management to the CA as it has with AONB funding. Another longer term option, which would need legislation, is that NPAs become NDPBs but with clear regulation on the how accountability would be established.
- Accountability on all public bodies to uphold/further NP purposes (section 62)
- That the CA continues to operate the SoS appointment process but also continues to seek improvements in its operation.
- That while the NPAs have a valuable role as exemplars they must actively promote their good practice beyond their boundaries.
Resources
There is a need for comparability and compatibility in the way all Protected Areas are funded. As a consequence of the Government's CroW Act, an AONB funding formula has been devised which is simple, fair and transparent and tied to performance based on agreed AONB Management Plans. In national parks we have, with DEFRA, piloted over this year and last year a funding formula which has proved in practice to be complex, inflexible and lacking in transparency. We believe we need a much simpler, fairer and more transparent funding system for national parks similar to that now being successfully employed in AONBs.
In discussions with the NPAs we discussed the merits of allowing borrowing to assist their ability in match funding, particularly external projects that benefit the Park and it's communities. This would allow a smoother flow of resources. The risks and opportunities should be explored.
Resource Recommendations
- Replace the current funding formula for NPs,being tested over the last and current financial year, which is proving complex and inflexible, with a simple, transparent funding formula similar and comparable to that successfully developed for AONBs
- As part of the above, introduce more consistency across all Parks in the bid documentation, accountancy methods, performance and baseline indicators/statistics.
- Instigate the ability for NPAs to combine Agri-environment cash with NPA bids to better enable NPs to deliver the Governments priorities and better respond to and deliver a regional agenda.
- That the joint CA/DEFRA advice on national priorities to NPAs should cover a longer period (perhaps 3 years ) to assist Parks to plan over a longer time period and better value for money.
- Parks to receive additional resources for implementing CRoW access provisions.
- Encourage Government to continue the steady increase in National Park Funding towards the level calculated by the Edwards Report - difficult as its authors found it to make predictions - and more importantly that would allow NPs to meet the objectives set for them in the Edwards Report.
- Consideration should be given to whether National Parks should be given powers to borrow money. The risks and opportunities should be explored.
- External funding varies considerably between National Parks at present and is sometimes accounted for in different ways . Consideration needs to be given to whether national targets should be agreed with links to the annual funding settlement
- Better monitoring systems are required to be able to track in a consistent way the additional outcomes being achieved as a result of real increases in funding
Conclusion
If funding is to be tied to performance then national parks need the policy framework, the incentives and the tools to allow them to perform effectively. We suggest, as a minimum, the following in which NPAs ability in this respect could be strengthened.
National Park Authorities are single purpose local authorities yet also organisations required to provide for and undertake their purposes for and in the nation's interest. They are a hybrid within the local and central government systems. The Best Value Performance Plans highlight their hybrid status by listing functional headings which are measured as individual pieces, when in effect they are purely a means to an end in securing park purposes. Clarification of their status is needed.
The processes of governance and best value are getting in the way of NPAs effectively doing their twin purpose job of conservation and enjoyment and understanding. This is mainly because NPAs have had "big" Local Government processes imposed on "tiny" single purpose authorities. Best Value Performance Plans for NPAs should be introduced that better suit their small scale and for policy frameworks that are designed to suit the particular nature, circumstances and purposes of national parks rather than trying to apply to NPAs systems designed for large, complex and multipurpose local authorities.
