Natural England

defra review of ENGLISH national parks - POLICY governance and funding AP02/21

FOR DECISION

To approve a new programme of Agency activity to deliver review outputs (paras 8 - 10) To agree to make a further submission to DEFRA focusing on those matters raised in our review submission that have not been given effect in the final report (in more detail at Annex 3), namely:  - scope for schemes of delegation for development control casework; - agreed programmes of work to reflect the national interest; - consider whether NPAs become NDPBs;  - consider whether National Parks be able to borrow money; - consider national targets for external funding, linked to the annual  funding settlement; - the cost of implementing CRoW be taken into account in funding allocations; - increase national park funding towards level calculated by the Edwards report.

Relevance to Strategy and Corporate Plan: The Agency has a statutory duty to advise Ministers on the continuing capability of National Parks to deliver their purposes (see Annex 2) The review report reaffirms a continuing and important role for the Agency.

Staff and financial implications: The review contains a number of areas of additional work not provided for in the corporate plan. We estimate one off additional staff and programme costs of £170k and annual costs of £90k, which will need to be provided for in the revised Corporate Plan within the Finest Countryside programme.

Main issues to concern the Board: Are the Board content with the balance of the final report ( Annex 3)? Given previous concerns about the funding system for Parks, are the Board content for us to work with DEFRA to devise the proposed new system based on two thirds for recurring costs( indicator based ) and one third for a performance based element?

Background

1. Last summer DEFRA undertook a review of English National Parks policy, governance, sponsorship and resources. The exercise was based on a consultation with a wide range of organisations/ individuals having an interest in National Parks. Over 120 responses were received. The Countryside Agency was included among the organisations consulted - our submission is at Annex 1, The eventual review outcomes are explained at Annex 3 and a summary of recommendations of most relevance to the Agency is at Annex 4.
   
2. DEFRA Ministers envisaged a "light touch" review focusing on issues appearing of most concern to consultation respondents. Although wide ranging the review has not attempted to address fundamental issues such as the status of National Parks, or whether independent bodies represent their best option for continuing management.
3. Following the consultation exercise, an Advisory Panel was convened, under the joint chairmanship of Michael Meacher and Alun Michael, to consider the responses and formulate recommendations. The Agency was represented on the panel by Jon Tomlinson. Two Board members also took part in the panel ( Kate Ashbrook and Martin Doughty) but in a non Agency capacity.

   Relevant powers/duties
   

4. The Countryside Agency has a duty under the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act to keep under review the progress made by National Parks in accomplishing their purposes, and to make representations to Ministers or local authorities on any matters affecting the accomplishment of those purposes. 
   

   Progress to date 

5. Following two meetings of the advisory panel, a report of the review findings and recommendations was released by DEFRA on 13 July at the Council for National Parks conference. 
   

   Review proposals with direct relevance to the work of the Countryside Agency 

6. The review report contains 54 proposals for actions and changes across the four areas of policy, governance, sponsorship and resources. The Agency has been actively involved in shaping the proposals, but not all the recommendations made in our formal submission and subsequently at the advisory panel have been accepted.
   
7. There are a number of important changes proposed. In particular:
   1. replacement of DoE Circular 12/96 with more up to date guidance;
   2. a requirement for CA to monitor, at national level, compliance with Environment Act S.62 (duty on public bodies to have regard to NP purposes),
   3. a requirement for CA to report to DEFRA on NPA business and performance plans,
   4. consideration to be given to the appointment of independent NPA chairs,
   5. scrapping the (artificial) 75/25 central/local funding division in favour of 100% direct grant from DEFRA ,
   6. a future legislative "cap" on the number NPA members ( 20/25 suggested),
      
8. In addition to our existing monitoring and reporting roles we are being asked to undertake new research covering: 
   1. the demand for, and carrying capacity of, new forms of recreation in NPs,
   2. tourism in NPs,
   3. state of the park indicators,
   4. ways to streamline boundary revision procedures,
      
9. We are also being asked to revise existing, or produce new guidance on:
   1. National Park management planning,
   2. sustainable tourism,
   3. consultation with local communities (in partnership with NPAs),
   4. selection and appointment of NPA members (collaboration with DEFRA).
      
10. At a more general level we are being asked to:
    1. support NPAs in identifying and promulgating good practice examples of appropriate sustainable development,
    2. work with NPAs to manage new rights of access to open country,
    3. give a higher priority to promoting understanding of NPs,
    4. work with DEFRA to encourage NPAs to ensure members attend induction training, and collaborate in the production of an induction package,
    5. develop and strengthen partnership working with NPAs.  

Financial and manpower consequences

1. If fully implemented, the review proposals will have consequences for our staffing needs and programme budget. The proposals for which implementation action falls to the Agency generate both one-off tasks, and some continuing commitments. 
   
2. The one-off tasks and associated staff/cash requirement estimates are:

   Task	PM days	S days	H days	Programme spend (£)
   Assist drafting of replacement for DoE Circular 12/96	1	15	5
   Research - Recreation demand and capacity		5	10	40,000
   Research - Sustainable tourism		5	10	30,000
   Research - State of the park indicators		5	10	30,000
   Research - Boundary revision procedures		5		20,000
   Publication - NP management planning		5	7
   Publication - Sustainable tourism		3	5	15,000
   Guidance - Involving local communities		3	5	5,000
   Guidance - Member induction pack		5	10	10,000
   Guidance - Member selection/ appointment		10	5	2,000
   TOTAL STAFF TIME	1	61	67
   COSTS ( Staff cost based on gross mid point)	226	10,320	8,758	152,000
   TOTAL				171,304

3. Potential ongoing commitments per annum are:

   Task	PM days	S days	H days	Programme spend (£)
   Monitor and report on S.62 compliance annually	1	5	15	25,000
   Assess and report on NP business and performance plans annually	1	15	20
   Support NPAs in promoting good practice examples of sustainable development		10	25	10,000
   Increased activity on promoting understanding of NPs		10	15	10,000
   Member training initiatives	2	10	15	20,000
   Increased partnership working with NPAs (mainly regions)	2	10	15
   TOTAL STAFF TIME	6	60	105
   COSTS ( Staff cost based on gross mid point)	1,355	10,150	13,725	65,000
   TOTALS				90,230

4. DEFRA have agreed in principle that we should meet the additional costs arising from these new tasks (staff and programme) from the Finest Countryside budget by using resources allocated for AONB project funding. 

   Next steps

5. The review report is now in the public domain. DEFRA will invite further comment, finalise and then draw up a timetable and action plan for implementation.
   
6. A number of proposals made by the advisory panel would require primary legislation to become effective. There is therefore no certainty that these will happen quickly ( due to the need to secure a legislative slot) or at all..
   
7. It is highly likely that the proposed replacement of DoE Circular 12/96 will be implemented in the near future. The new guidance would place greater emphasis on compliance with Environment Act S.62 and be wider in scope than its predecessor covering issues such as:

   Ÿ the international context ( category 5 protected landscapes),

   Ÿ planning,

   Ÿ national role of NPs, 

   Ÿ recreation and tourism, 

   Ÿ the Sandford principle (more explicit guidance), and

   Ÿ sustainable management of wider countryside. 
   

8. It is proposed that there will be a further review of National Parks management and funding in about five years.
   

   Risks and mitigation measures
   

9. The review calls for some positive changes by NPAs, the Countryside Agency and other affected bodies. If no action is taken there are risks that:

   Ÿ our relationship with NPAs could become more distant resulting in diminished opportunities for the Parks to contribute to the Agency's objectives;

   Ÿ our statutory role as advisors to government on National Park issues could be diminished;

   Ÿ a significant opportunity to improve the way NPs are funded and managed to deliver the Government's agenda for the countryside may be lost; 

   Ÿ an overdue "wake up call" to public bodies regarding their statutory obligations to take account of NP purposes would not be made.
   

Jeremy Worth

4 July 2002

ANNEX A

NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITIES AND BROADS AUTHORITY REVIEW

Submission from the Countryside Agency - December 2001

Introduction

1. 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; although 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.

2. The powers and duties of the Countryside Agency in relation to national parks  fall 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. As a consequence of its many statutory responsibilities towards National Parks, the Agency has the opportunity to observe parks at work and we see a great deal more collaborative work going on spreading good practice to mutual benefit.

3. The Countryside Agency has an important future role to play in regard to national parks as it is the only body with an overview of their activities and actions as well as operating national programmes which add value to national parks and the wider countryside. In addition to the statutory duties in relation to national parks which the Agency has an obligation to undertake, it is also the Government's advisor on the sustainable use of the English countryside and acts as a champion for the UK model of national parks, as living and working examples of sustainable rural development, which is of global significance in the twenty-first century.

4. The Agency recognises the significant role played by national parks since their inception more than 50 years ago, and the inspiration they have given to millions of people. We want to ensure that they continue to be special places and that their unique qualities are maintained and enhanced. However there are changes which we would like to see and this review gives us an opportunity to promote. Our views are detailed below with bullet point summary recommendations made under the four review themes of policy, governance, sponsorship and resources.

Policy

5. 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 suggested that the law is not sufficiently clear about the weight to give their socio economic duty whilst pursuing their purposes. 

6. Section 61 of the Environment Act 1995 clearly specifies two statutory purposes for a National Park:

• to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Park; and 
• to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of those areas by the public.  

7. Sustainable rural development - in its widest sense and, therefore, covering environmental, social and economic aspects - is fundamental to the fulfilment of these twin purposes. It is difficult to envisage how the environment and cultural heritage of a Park could be conserved or enhanced without the proactive engagement of the managers of the land, the owners of its physical heritage and the local communities, whose culture and livelihoods sustain the vitality of the Park. Equally, the promotion of the amenity and inspirational value of a national park requires suitable activity and organisation in the fields of tourism and recreation, which depend upon and may benefit local facilities, businesses and employment. Thus, the National Park Authority can only realise its core purposes by achieving sustainable rural development which entails acting in concert with its key social and occupational communities. This logically follows from the fact that the Park is a set of living and functioning places and is not a museum nor a theme park nor a wilderness area.

8. 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. We suggest two distinct formal rationales for the National Park Authority to engage in rural development:

(i) the pursuit of sustainable development as the implicit means of achieving the Park's core conservation and recreational purposes. This entails working with and through its key social and occupational communities which include the land based sector, the owners/managers of the physical heritage, the distinct cultural and geographical communities of the Park, the tourism and leisure sector and the educational and interpretive sector.

(ii) the fostering of the economic and social well-being of local communities in the Park as an explicit end in itself. While this must be subsidiary to the core purposes (incur reasonable cost and be done in partnership), it is nevertheless an obligation. It therefore requires the Park Authority to scrutinise its methods of working, to ensure that, where possible, they do foster local well-being. While the amount to be spent under this head should not be excessive, the Agency believes that proper reliance on (i) in its widest sense should mean that this power does not need to be relied on to the extent that should ever worry a national park authority.

9. An update to government policy guidance to national park authorities (Circular 12/96) should 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 appropriate rural economic development in the national parks and indeed in promoting the national parks as regional economic assets in their own right.

10. Parks have generally demonstrated a strong willingness and ability to deliver government policy objectives. The main co-ordinating focus for this is the Countryside Agency's own advice to the Government and national park authorities on the preparation of their spending plans. We have evidence that the park authorities are responding to the guidance in their plans and in action on the ground. 

11. Those promoting new initiatives in government departments might consider how national parks can serve as test beds for new ideas and approaches. For example, some national park authorities have been involved in the implementation of agri-environment schemes, the Countryside Agency's own Land Management Initiatives, and in structural fund programmes such as Objective 5b. Looking forward, it might be possible for the national park authorities to be the lead interface in applying the "first stop shop" concept across all rural enterprise schemes ( land based sector/ recreation & tourism/ built heritage, etc) in a streamlined delivery of government grants, advice and regulation - calling in other experts (English Nature, English Heritage, Environment Agency, State Vetinerary Service, Rural Development Service, Small Business Service etc.) as necessary. This would be a good demonstration of "joined up government" in response to Lord Haskins' criticisms of the number of agencies active on the ground in Cumbria.

12. 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 in the Agency's view do not themselves justify new legislation or policy. However, it is important to continue to emphasise the national importance of national parks.

13. 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 public rights of way should continue, as should collaboration with the Countryside Agency on access, national trails, rural transport and other programmes. 

14. 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.

15. National Park Management Plans are 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. Specifically it should be a way of bringing public bodies to account for what they have spent and done to achieve national park purposes.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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 locally agreed schemes of delegation for routine development control casework.

19. The role of National Park Authorities and the Broads Authority as models for the sustainable management of the wider countryside:  To assess the balance between the social, economic and environmental elements of sustainable development national parks are well placed to make difficult decisions in this regard and to monitor and adjust the "trade off" effects as necessary. There is significant potential for national parks to spread good practice in this regard 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 beyond their boundaries including learning from and sharing of experience and practice at the international level, and that new guidance should make this explicit.

20. Summary of Policy recommendations.

• to underline that the twin National Park purposes embody sustainable rural development in its widest sense and is the means of achieving the Park's core conservation and recreation purposes, with fostering the social and economic well being of the local community being an end obligation.
• that spending on the socio economic objectives is a legitimate part of the principal national park purposes. 
• closer and positive relationships with regional and sub-regional bodies with NPAs recognised by those bodies as key and important players.
• scope for planning arrangements in national parks to work better through schemes of delegation for development control casework.
• Best Value Performance Plans for NPAs that better to suit their small scale. 
• ability for NPAs to become "first stop shops" to administer and deliver, within their parks, national rural enterprise schemes. 
• encouragement to NPAs to be more forward and wider looking particularly on major issues such as social inclusion and global warming.
• publication by NPAs of "stewardship" reports on how relevant authorities further/support national park purposes, with an overview report from the Countryside Agency to the Government.
• Parks to learn from, share and promote their expertise beyond their boundaries.
• That there are agreed programmes of work to reflect the national interest in national parks.  

• Governance 

21. 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, however it has also had the effect of increasing the overall number of Members on the Park Authority, which goes against the modernisation of Local Government practice. The change in the balance between local and national representation has however, increased the risk that local interests can appear to override the national purposes of the national parks. We would see that some form of contract with all members to uphold national park purposes as beneficial. 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. 

22. 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 receiving 100% grant in aid from the Government, appointed by and accountable to the Secretary of State. Indeed, that may make it easier to raise additional funds for specific purposes from the local authorities in the area.

23. 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. 

24. 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 propose that all categories of NPA membership are time limited in the same way, in accordance with general guidance from the Commissioner of Public Appointments. 

25 The appointment of parish council members should also be open and follow a recognised democratic electoral process. Some national parks have developed best practice in this election process, for example using the Association of Parish Councils or the Electoral Reform Society to conduct and oversee the ballot. The best system should be adopted and used by all to create an open, understood and transparent process.

26. 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 recommend that, in line with other public bodies, all Members should be appraised annually .

27. Summary of Governance Recommendations

• that the Parish Council appointment process is open, democratic and follows best practice.
• 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.
• the modernisation of NPAs, similar to that in Local Authorities, should proceed rapidly including a robust system of accountability with a process for enforcement, including a contract for all members to uphold national park purposes.
• consideration that NPAs become NDPBs but with clear regulation on how accountability would be established.
• That the CA continues to operate the SoS appointment process but also continues to seek improvements in its operation.  

• Sponsorship 

28. 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. advice and consideration of corporate plans and funding) but in other ways are complementary. The Agency needs to continue to serve as the arms' length statutory "regulator", but it might be possible for DEFRA to reduce its effort by relying more on the advice of the Agency - see paragraph 34 below. 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. 

29. Summary of Sponsorship recommendations

• encourage accountability on all relevant public bodies to uphold/further NP purposes (section 62 of the 1995 Environment Act)  

Resources

30. 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.

31. 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 in October 2001, which it may wish to consider as part of this Review. These points are covered for completeness in the first six summary bullet points below.

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. 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 an approach whereby DEFRA sets a ring-fenced sum for all the national parks and the Countryside Agency distributes the sum between the national parks. This could be a way to assist DEFRA achieve efficiency savings and the Agency would be pleased to play a role in devising a new funding and distribution system, perhaps drawing upon our experience with AONBs and the evolving experience between the Countryside Council for Wales and the Welsh Assembly . 

35. Resource Recommendations

• there is a pressing 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;
• 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 joint CA/DEFRA advice on national priorities to NPAs should cover a longer period ( 3 - 5 years ) to assist Parks to plan over a longer time period and achieve better value for money;
• the additional costs arising from implementing the access provisions of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 should be taken account of when agreeing future funding allocations.
• Replace the current funding formula for NPs, with a simple, transparent funding formula similar and comparable to that successfully developed for AONBs
• continue the steady increase in National Park Funding towards the level calculated by the Edwards Report.  

• Conclusion 

36. If funding is to be tied to performance then national parks need the policy framework, 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. 

37. 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. 

38. We consider that 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 "small" single purpose authorities. Best Value Performance Plans for NPAs should be introduced that better suit their small scale and policy frameworks that are designed to suit the particular nature, circumstances and purposes of rather than trying to apply to NPAs systems designed for large , complex and multi purpose local authorities.

39. The Countryside Agency considers that the issues raised and discussed, together with the proposed recommendations in this paper will, if adopted, equip those responsible for the management of our national parks with tools and mechanisms appropriate to the challenges ahead in the early years of the twenty first century. We are ready to work with Government and the National Park Authorities to develop and test any new methodology and ideas which the Department may consider valuable. 

40. The Agency Board commends the proposals in this submission and views this policy review as an exciting opportunity to continue the evolution of National Parks fifty years on . The Agency stands ready to pursue these issues with skill , expertise and enthusiasm. 

Richard Partington 

12 December 2001

ANNEX B

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. 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 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.  

ANNEX C

Summary of Countryside Agency responses and review outcomes

Topic	CA proposal	Outcome
Policy	To underline that the twin National Park purposes embody sustainable rural development in its widest sense and is the means of achieving the Park's core conservation and recreation purposes, with fostering the social and economic well being of the local community being an end obligation.	New policy statement on NPs to replace DoE Circular 12/96. This will address wider role in sustainable development, developing partnerships, and highlight positive role of NPAs in the rural agenda
	That spending on the socio economic objectives is a legitimate part of the principal national park purposes.	Agreed - Provided that the two primary purposes are served . The "significant expenditure" constraint affecting expenditure on social and economic purposes could be removed when parliamentary time allows.
	Closer and positive relationships with regional and sub-regional bodies with NPAs recognised by those bodies as key and important players.	Will be covered in new policy statement
	Scope for planning arrangements in national parks to work better through schemes of delegation for development control casework.	Not accepted - would lose consistency in decision making. May be scope for some research though
	Best Value Performance Plans for NPAs that better to suit their small scale.	Agreed - need a new BV regime better reflecting the scope and resources of NPAs
	Ability for NPAs to become "first stop shops" to administer and deliver, within their parks, national rural enterprise schemes.	First stop shop concept accepted, but NPAs should not be responsible for administering other agencies grant schemes
	Encouragement to NPAs to be more forward and wider looking particularly on major issues such as social inclusion and global warming.	Not specifically addressed but the spirit is accepted
	Publication by NPAs of "stewardship" reports on how relevant authorities further/support national park purposes, with an overview report from the Countryside Agency to the Government.	Appropriate for NPAs to monitor activity of relevant authorities and report serious breaches to DEFRA and CA. May be too difficult to monitor all affected bodies. CA should provide overarching report of compliance
	Parks to learn from, share and promote their expertise beyond their boundaries.	Accepted up to a point. Should be no overlap with LAs work. Government should clarify.
	That there are agreed programmes of work to reflect the national interest in national parks.	Not addressed by report
Governance	That the Parish Council appointment process is open, democratic and follows best practice.	DEFRA, CA, NPAs and LGA to collaborate in developing guidance
	There should be a rigorous appraisal of all NPA Members, compulsory training and with all appointments time limited.	Formal appraisal should not be forced on NPAs. DEFRA, CA, and NPAs to discuss appropriate assessment mechanism as part of continuing training and development.  NPAs to deliver induction training with core element common to all parks.  CA to continue developing induction package.
	That the member appointment processes for the Broads Authority be made the same as the other NPAs.	A separate study of the Broads needs to be completed by December 2002.
	The modernisation of NPAs, similar to that in Local Authorities, should proceed rapidly including a robust system of accountability with a process for enforcement, including a contract for all members to uphold national park purposes.	Measures to improve accountability to include: * DEFRA ministers to meet chairs and CEOs on NPAs in two year cycles * NPAs and CA to produce good practice guidance on effective consultation with stakeholders Enforcement issue not addressed. "Contract to uphold" not considered appropriate.
	Consideration that NPAs become NDPBs but with clear regulation on how accountability would be established.	Not addressed in the review
	That the CA continues to operate the SoS appointment process but also continues to seek improvements in its operation.	Agreed - CA to continue to develop its role and guidance.
Sponsorship	Encourage accountability on all relevant public bodies to uphold/further NP purposes (section 62 of the 1995 Environment Act)	Agreed - with monitoring of compliance by CA
Funding	There is a pressing need to introduce more consistency across all Parks in the bid documentation, accountancy methods, performance and baseline indicators/statistics.	Agreed. Improved Best Value Performance Plans should enable fairer comparisons to be made. NPA Service Agreements should be used.
	Consideration should be given to whether National Parks should be given powers to borrow money. The risks and opportunities should be explored	Not accepted though DEFRA should discuss possible options with CA and NPAs for changes to the funding regime generally
	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;	Targets represent a step too far . Too heavy emphasis on chasing external funding could lead to NPAs work being skewed towards areas for which funds are available. There could also be extra administrative burdens
	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;	Agreed but no specific measures suggested.
	The joint CA/DEFRA advice on national priorities to NPAs should cover a longer period ( 3 - 5 years ) to assist Parks to plan over a longer time period and achieve better vfm;	Three year service agreements proposed (referred to above)
	The additional costs arising from implementing the access provisions of the CRoW Act 2000 should be taken account of when agreeing future funding allocations.	Not addressed in report
	Replace the current funding formula for NPs, with a simple, transparent funding formula similar and comparable to that successfully developed for AONBs	Two element bid process proposed covering: * recurring needs baseline, * performance based (and exceptional pressures)
	Continue the steady increase in National Park Funding towards the level calculated by the Edwards Report.	Not addressed by report

ANNEX D

Summary of review outcomes of most relevance to the Agency's work 

Policy

Proposal 1: The Government should set out in a new public statement its vision for National Parks: this should form part of wider advice to replace Department of the Environment Circular 12/96.

Proposal 5: National Park Authorities should, with the help of funding from DEFRA's new Sustainable Development Fund, and with support from the Countryside Agency, identify and promulgate good practice examples of sustainable development appropriate to National Parks, and of action by Authorities to promote such development

Proposal 8: National Park Authorities should consider how the England Rural Development Plan, the Heritage Lottery Fund and other programmes may be used to support pilot schemes and other initiatives designed to integrate land management, landscape protection and the promotion of biodiversity. DEFRA, the Countryside Agency and English Nature should involve the Park Authorities where appropriate. The Park Authorities should review not only the success of schemes in relation to their areas, but also how the lessons learnt might apply elsewhere.

Proposal 13: The Countryside Agency should, in consultation with DEFRA, National Park Authorities, and relevant sports and conservation agencies, commission research to assess i) demand for different forms of recreation in the National Parks; and ii) the capacity of the Parks to accommodate them, without significant harm to the special qualities of Parks.

Proposal 14: National Park Authorities should be encouraged to use their current legal powers to create new access opportunities and improve the existing path network. DEFRA should consider with the National Park Authorities whether Authorities should become statutorily responsible for rights of way. They should work closely with the Countryside Agency, in consultation with English Nature, to develop arrangements for managing the new right of access to open country.

Proposal 15: DEFRA, the Countryside Agency and National Park Authorities should attach higher priority to promoting understanding of National Parks. DEFRA should, in consultation with DFES, encourage Park Authorities to develop, with partners, programmes and initiatives to promote greater understanding and education among a wider audience, including those from urban areas, ethnic minorities and young people. 

Proposal 16: The Countryside Agency with the English Tourism Council, and in consultation with DEFRA, DCMS, English Nature and the National Park Authorities, should revisit the policy statement "Principles for Tourism in National Parks" to place a renewed focus on sustainable tourism. These principles should then be translated into sustainable tourism strategies for each park.

Proposal 17: The Countryside Agency should, in consultation with DEFRA, DCMS English Tourism Council, English Nature and the National Park Authorities, commission research and information gathering relating to tourism in National Parks. 

Proposal 18: DEFRA, the Countryside Agency and the National Park Authorities should work together to ensure relevant public bodies (including public agencies, local authorities, other government  departments, and statutory undertakers) are made aware of, understand, and comply with the Section 62 duty in the 1995 Environment Act: to have regard to the purposes of National Parks. In particular:

i) DEFRA officials should develop effective working relations with relevant contacts in key other Government Departments and regulatory bodies; and should update Circular 12/96, identifying key public bodies to which the duty applies;ii) DEFRA Ministers should continue to use the Green Ministers meetings as well as the new cabinet sub-committee (DA(RR)) and other suitable national forums to champion National Parks and to help ensure other Government Departments take account of National Park interests in their policies and programmes. iii) the National Park Authorities should include in their annual reporting arrangements a brief assessment of compliance with Section 62; and should bring serious contraventions to the attention of both DEFRA and the Countryside Agency; iv) the CA should provide an overview report to DEFRA of compliance with Section 62.

Proposal 19: The current corporate planning framework should be strengthened and made more transparent. In particular:

i) DEFRA should make clearer the Government's policy priorities for the purposes of resource bidding and allocation and these should be reflected in "headline indicators" or National Park Authority Service Agreement targets. ii) the National Park Management Plan should be given renewed importance in Government policy advice, as providing the policy framework for action to further Park purposes. iii) The Countryside Agency, in consultation with DEFRA and National Park Authorities, should review its guidance on preparing National Park Management Plans. iv) the Countryside Agency should work with National Park Authorities and others to develop a core set of national State of the Park indicators. State of the Park reporting should be used to monitor progress against the National Park Management Plan. v) DEFRA should work with National Park Authorities to build on their proposals to develop a tailor-made and streamlined version of the Best Value regime. vi) The Countryside Agency should report to DEFRA on both National Park Authorities' business and performance plans and on progress against wider State of the Park indicators. 

Proposal 20: DEFRA and the Countryside Agency should consider the case for re-examining the scope for streamlining procedures for making changes to the boundaries of National Parks 

Governance

Proposal 22: In the longer term consideration should be given to legislating to specify a maximum membership of between 20 and 25 and  changing the mix to three-fifths local representatives (local authority and parish council members) and two-fifths national appointees. This must be combined with — and ideally preceded by — measures to ensure effective consultation with local and regional stakeholders and other relevant interests 

Proposal 24: DEFRA should, in consultation with National Park Authorities, the Countryside Agency and the Local Government Association, consider further the case for the appointment of an independent Chair for National Park Authorities.

Proposal 26: DEFRA should with the Countryside Agency, National Park Authorities and Local Government Association, develop and promulgate i) good practice guidance on selection and appointment of all members; and ii) job descriptions for Chairs and, ideally, all members of National Park Authorities. 

Proposal 27: DEFRA should give guidance to the Countryside Agency on the qualities, knowledge and experience looked for in Secretary of State appointments, and these criteria should be public. 

Proposal 30: DEFRA and the Countryside Agency should, through guidance, encourage all National Park Authorities to ensure that all members attend induction training. The Countryside Agency and National Park Authorities should jointly develop an induction package in consultation with DEFRA and the Local Government Association.

Sponsorship

Proposal 31: The Government should set out clearly the roles of central government (DEFRA in particular), the Countryside Agency, the Government Offices and other regional partners — as well as the National Park Authorities - in relation to National Parks.

Proposal 33: The Countryside Agency should continue to develop and strengthen partnership working with National Park Authorities including on i) research and information gathering ii) review of its guidance on member appointment procedures, training and assessment iii) projects or initiatives proposed or being undertaken by National Park Authorities in support of Government objectives. 

Proposal 40: The Countryside Agency, in partnership with National Park Authorities, should produce a good practice checklist to promote more effective consultation and dialogue between National Park Authorities and local communities, business interests and local authorities.

Resources

Proposal 42: The basis for determining funding allocations should be refined. There should be two elements:

i)  recurring needs based baseline: this would involve establishment of baseline funding for each NPA based on recurring needs or pressures common across National Parks.  ii)  performance based element (and exceptional pressures): this would be allocated on the basis of National Park Authorities' past performance and forward programmes, including responses to exceptional pressures.

Proposal 44: The Countryside Agency should work with DEFRA, in consultation with National Park Authorities, to improve the quality and consistency of the information supporting individual Park Authority bids and to develop a better system of evaluating outcomes. 

Proposal 46: On balance, 100% of National Park Grant should come direct from central government rather than, as now, 25% being redirected via local authorities.

Proposal 49: DEFRA should, in consultation with National Park Authorities and the Countryside Agency, consider further whether current funding arrangements provide the best means of catering for large capital expenditure projects which may from time-to-time be needed in National Parks. 

Proposal 50: DEFRA, in consultation with the Countryside Agency, provide advice in new policy guidance about the extent to which National Park Authorities can commit resources outside their boundaries in support of National Park purposes

Proposal 51: More use could be made of secondments, short-term attachments between National Park Authorities and with the Countryside Agency, and other bodies.

Proposal 52: Greater co-operation and joint working should be encouraged between Park Authorities and with local authorities, and other relevant bodies (e.g. the Countryside Agency and conservation boards of AONBs.)