Natural England

Staff and financial implications:

·         Staffing will not be affected initially, but there would be a small saving in staff if a Trust takes on all management responsibilities in the future

·         The pre-set up costs of a Trust are provided in the Corporate Plan.   Set up cost and an initial in the trust will be included in the next corporate plan and is likely to be around £500k for three years.

1.   The Board agreed in November 2001 to proceed to a second stage of establishing a national trails trust to include a consultation process with partners and investigations into the implications of such establishment.   The remit agreed for such an organisation is included in Annex 1.

2.   Annex 1 also sets out essential background information on national trails, the Agency’s statutory position, its current role and level of activity and the drivers for change.

3.   Continuing research and the results of a recent consultation exercise have led us to look closely at how a trust might be constituted and what aspects of national trail management it might successfully address.    Current management is largely through a partnership arrangement between the Countryside Agency and highway authorities.   A summary of consultation results is at Annex 2.

Focus of this paper

4.   This paper:

·         highlights the key issues which any new management arrangements will need to address

·         sets out relevant information to support changes

·         suggests when the establishment of a National Trails Trust might be appropriate.

·         proposes a timetable for the work involved (Annex 3)

Issues which a new management regime needs to address

5.   In our view, there are three main issues. National trails need:

-          an increased level of funding for the whole network if we are to be able to support planned achievement of   “meeting the grade” standards;

-          a predictable and reliable funding stream to enable reliable maintenance programmes to be put in place;

-          a transparent and effective management process which is supported by all partners and which is run by the most appropriate organisation.

An increased level of funding  

6.   As flagship routes, National Trails should achieve the standards set out in “Meeting the Grade”.   We estimate that it will cost approximately £10m to complete the programmed network of trails over the next 6 years and approximately £2.2m per annum thereafter to maintain these standards across all trails.

7.   Whilst individual trail management groups/national trail officers already raise funds for their trails, we expect that an independent National Trails Trust will have the potential to raise extra resources from a mixture of sources which are not so easily available to existing partners.   An analysis of some of these possible funding sources is at Annex 4.   A team of professional fund raisers would be able to raise extra funds in the short term whilst other methods such as the gathering of an endowment or the establishment of a membership scheme may be successful in the long term.   We recognise that initial contributions to an endowment fund would be beneficial in providing a springboard to enable the trust to become successful.   Whatever fund raising is undertaken it will be important that maintenance/revenue costs are included so that new projects have ongoing maintenance regimes in place.   The recent consultation exercise showed that this sort of fund raising trust will be supported by the majority of our partners and user groups.

8.   The trust itself would, of course, consume resources for its administration.   Estimated costs of a trust are included at Annex 5.   We would consider it a success if a fund raising trust were to be showing surplus by the end of its third year of operation.             

 A consistent funding stream

9.   National trails funding is treated in the same way as other programmes of work within the Agency’s Corporate Plan and therefore specific resources have been earmarked only on an annual basis.   Although Government Corporate Planning is on a 3 yearly cycle, Defra as a new department, is not yet in position to guarantee a three year funding profile.   This has caused uncertainty and has in the past led to “stop – go” messages that disrupt planned improvement and maintenance works, which does not deliver good value for money.   Annex 6 shows current and past spending on National Trails.

10.   We are therefore proposing to channel resources through an independent body such as a National Trails Trust.   Such an organisation could receive funding from the Agency on a 3-5 year basis and thus be, at least partly, protected from the uncertainties of the annual corporate planning round.   A Trust would need to work in partnership with highways authorities to ensure other necessary funding was available to deliver agreed outcomes. [NB. Whereas the Countryside Agency is not strategic at all and has no visibile admission of failure.]

11.   A National Trails Trust, once it was working effectively on fund raising and as it grew in experience, could move towards a greater role in trails management.   Research and consultation has led us to conclude that more evidence of suitability should be gathered before we move to this arrangement.   We propose to ascertain the viability of a fund-raising Trust initially and move to the full Trust arrangements when we are certain they will work.   Measures of success for the Trust would, therefore, be that the Trust had raised necessary funds, proved itself capable of taking on the wider management of the National Trails network, and that the network is successfully managed and maintained after 5 years.

A transparent and effective management process

12.   The work of a National Trails Trust would be greatly facilitated if we are able to introduce a longer and more consistent management regime for setting priorities and standards across all trails.   Whilst the current management regime for national trails (Annex 7) works reasonably it could be improved by taking a network wide approach. Once such a process is in place, it will help the Trust to take on responsibility from the Agency.

Response to consultation about the establishment of a Trust

13.   A majority of respondents to the recent consultation on the National Trails Trust were in favour of the status quo   - providing the efficiency of current procedures was reviewed and improved.

14.   Consultees considered that independent body would need to be set up to achieve the best quality management of all trails and would need to work in conjunction with a range of partners.

15.   Results from the consultation exercise also suggest that there should be a local management team for each trail, and that each Trail should be able to set its own management structure.   Although this arrangement has long been supported by the Agency, it has not been implemented across all Trails.   A Trust would need to ensure that it set in place flexible management models which have a clear remit for responsibilities.   Trust officers would need to maintain a high level of control over such groups and thus would need staff resource to attend meetings, monitor progress and conduct associated work..  

16.   If full management control were transferred to the Trust, the conditions of employment of national trails officers and ancilliary staff will have to be taken into account.   We need to be sure that any such body is capable of moving to this position before taking this step.

Project risks and mitigation 

17a.   There is a risk that the cost of change outweighs benefits.  We will work through the change process on a step-by-step basis.   Each stage will include a review of the costs and benefits and we will not progress if at any stage the costs outweigh the benefits

17b.   There is a risk that lack of commitment from partners causes difficulties over a range of CA work. We will consult with partners at all stages of the change process to ensure that they can commit to any new arrangements

17c.   There is a risk that partners do not see establishment of Trust as priority.  We need to ensure that partners are fully aware of process and benefits of Trust establishment

17d.   There is a risk that the new processes do not operate efficiently and effectively and do not make a significant difference on the ground.  We will consult regional staff, National Trails Officers and other interested parties before making any changes.   We will use consultants to check our findings for suitability

17e.   There is a risk that the Agency just doesn’t have the drive to see the project through. We have been working on the idea for four years now, stimulated by the successful establishment of the British Waterways Trust.   So far there has been a lot of consultation with little to show. We will ensure that we have a realistic business plan, with time targets.

Annex 1

The Agency's statutory position, current role and drivers for change

Introduction

1.   National Trails were first recognised in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as "long distance routes" - provide an outstanding opportunity to walk, cycle or ride through some of the best countryside in England.   Recognised both nationally and internationally, they are ‘flagships’ of the rights of way network.   They provide for a wide range of interests and ability, from very challenging routes for the long distance walker to more accessible opportunities for short local walks.

2.    There are 13 National Trails in England at different stages of development.   When all are fully open they will comprise some 3650 km of well managed and promoted routes. The Pennine Bridleway and Cotswold Way and are still in the process of being developed – Hadrian’s Wall opens next month.   Others, though formally ‘open’ require varying (and sometimes substantial) ongoing funding for further improvement or maintenance work.

The Agency’s statutory responsibilities and obligations 

3.    Section 51 of the 1949 Act provides powers for the Countryside Agency to prepare and submit reports making proposals for long distance routes.   The Act does not   impose any duty on the Countryside Agency to implement an approved scheme or to support the maintenance of an approved route.  

4.    So whilst the Agency (and the Countryside Commission before it) has commonly referred to itself as having a ‘statutory responsibility’ for National Trails, this is simply to recommend to the Secretary of State that any new National Trail be designated.

5.    The Act requires, among other things, that any report recommending the creation of a National Trail is to contain an estimate of the capital outlay needed to establish the route and the annual costs of maintenance (s.51(5)).   The Agency has taken responsibility for bidding to the Secretary of State for funds to implement National Trails via highway authorities who, of course, remain the statutory authority for creating and maintaining rights of way.

6.    The 1949 Act also enables the Agency to vary an approved proposal (s55). Over the years over 300 varying reports have been submitted to, and approved by, the Secretary of State.

7.    In the past the Agency, and the Countryside Commission before it, had a role in promoting and assisting National Trails as follows:

      Ÿ  general policy development and oversight;

Ÿ  assessment of the need for, consultation on and recommendation of new National Trails to the Secretary of State for approval;

Ÿ  on confirmation and in partnership with highway authorities - the physical establishment or improvement of the route; and

Ÿ  longer term support for the management, maintenance and promotion of National Trails, including the employment of National Trail Officers and other staff (usually, but not always employed by a highway authority).

Current Role

8.    The   Corporate Plan describes the following objectives for the next three years:  

Ÿ  the completion of Hadrian’s Wall Path by 2003; the Pennine Bridleway by 2008 and the Cotswold Way by 2005; 

Ÿ  the completion of all major restoration and alignment projects, and adequate

pre-emptive maintenance for all existing National Trails by March 2004/05; and

Ÿ  the agreement and implementation of new arrangements for the management of     the network by 2004/5

9.    The Agency, its predecessors and its highway authority partners have often struggled 

to provide the funding necessary for consistent high quality maintenance.  

Trails have required different approaches over time (eg. the Pennine Way required 

several millions of pounds of investment to overcome difficult ground conditions 

along some of the designated route). Long term under funding and consequent 

differential management standards means that the quality of some parts of some Trails 

falls well below the agreed standard.

Drivers for Change

10.    In 1992 a ‘value for money’ study recommended that the funding and management of Trails should be fundamentally reviewed.   After a further internal study in 1995/6 some limited changes were introduced. For example, responsibility for individual Trails was passed to a single Countryside Agency region where possible.

11.    In 1998 the Countryside Commission decided to investigate the scope for setting up an umbrella body for National Trails. Consultants were appointed during 2000 to look at the options for a new body which could be responsible for:

Ÿ  directing   the local management of National Trails;

Ÿ  managing the budget for National Trails;

Ÿ  working with highway authorities to achieve the standards set out in ‘Meeting the Grade;

Ÿ  raising funds from other sources to maintain and enhance the network; 

Ÿ  promoting the network nationally and internationally.  

12.    The consultants considered a range of options for the type of body needed, including a single trust covering all Trails, an individual trust for each Trail, franchising, a charitable company and a combination of models.   Their advice was that any new body would need to: 

Ÿ  straddle the public, private and charitable sectors;

Ÿ  provide for and encourage the involvement of volunteers and user groups;

Ÿ  be capable of working constructively with local authorities.

and advised that a company limited by guarantee, with charitable status would be the most appropriate model to aim for.

13.    In May 2001 the Agency Board approved in principle the establishment of a third party body and asked officers to report progress by the end of the year

14.   In November 2001 the Board agreed to launch a consultation paper to secure a broad degree of agreement about the proposed way forward for a National Trails Trust.

Annex 2

SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESULTS

-          A majority of respondents supported the charitable objects of a Trust as set out

-          A majority of respondents accepted the Trust activities as set out

-          Support for employment of National Trails staff by a Trust was the minority view

-          A majority of respondents supported Trust receiving money on a multi-year basis but wanted assurances that it would be fully accountable

-          A majority of respondents supported the proposal of National Trails Officers continuing to co-ordinate local Trails

-          Support for individual Trails Officers working for the benefit of all Trails was the minority view

-          A majority supported the proposal that Trails Officers continue to be hosted by highways authorities

-          Almost unanimously it was recognised that highways authorities would not have the capacity to contribute to National Trails above the current level of 25%

-          A majority of respondents supported the proposal that a Trust should be able to bring other long distance routes into its remit in the future.

-          A majority supported the proposal that fund-raising could be undertaken by a Trust

-          A majority suppoted the proposal that a trust should be able to raise funds in any ethical manner

-          A majority expressed the view that the proposed Trust structure was not large enough for the task

-          A majority of respondents thought that each Trail should have a management group which suited individual circumstances

A full copy of these summary notes is available from Joanna Redgwell on 01242 533282

Annex  

PLANNED/COSTED TIMETABLE

The £50k identified above is in current Corporate and Business Plans

Figures above are not included in Corporate Plan figures which stand at £2.4 million for 04/05 (503 and 504)

Annex 4

SOME POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES

  1  Endowment

One way of securing a long-term funding regime for the maintenance of the National Trails network through a Trust is by way of an endowment, the interest from which will accrue to National Trails.   Assuming an interest rate of 10%, a sum of approximately £30m would be required to continue with the current level of maintenance funding.   Informal research has shown that large scale endowments are difficult to find but that it might be possible, over a period of 10 – 15 years, to build up such a fund from a large number of small scale sources.   This will however, need a dedicated staff resource and results cannot be guaranteed.   A charitable Trust may be better placed to build up such a fund than a statutory body such as The Countryside Agency.

2.  Increased funding by local authorities

A recent consultation exercise suggested that it is unlikely that local authorities will be   able or willing to provide additional funding above the current level of 25%.   They will certainly be unable to provide any capital sums to add to an endowment fund – both because such sums are not available and because of the problems with using an authority’s assets to fund work outside of its own area. 

3  Sponsorship

3(i) The Agency has some experience with sponsorship deals – most notably with WHI.   Internal advice has been that this has been successful because there has been a “tight” target audience for the scheme and sponsors have been willing to sign up for this.   The monetary gain has, however, been minimal.   Sponsors may be willing to support a particular project on a Trail but it is unlikely that they will sign up to support the “unknown quantity” of a National Trails Trust.   It is also important to recognise that most support of this kind is restricted to “capital project costs” rather than day-to-day “revenue costs”.

3(ii) Abortive work on attempting to obtain sponsorship for National Trails has been carried out in the past with large organisations which have a reputation for charitable works.    In 1997 a business lunch was arranged for 40 big name companies.   Several actually attended including Tesco and Thames trains but no results were forthcoming.   BUPA entered into a sponsorship agreement with the Thames Path in the 1990s – a lot of time and effort was invested for very little reward although it did provide a vehicle for the National Trails Officer

4 Supporters schemes

Work on this area has suggested that it might be possible to raise about £25 per supporter per year (The Wildlife Trusts request £2 per month from members) [6] and Gift Aid would enable the tax of about 75% of givers to be recovered by the Trust. (Currently worth 28%) of each subscription.   (10,000 supporters would raise £320k but will need extra staff resource to support them)

5  Professional Fundraisers

This is certainly an option – currently used by British Waterways on a contract basis.   However it should be noted that the amounts of money which could be raised is uncertain.   Internal advice suggests that £3m per annum would need a large team of fundraisers. (For example The Waterways Trust raised £679,982 in 2000/01 using a team of 12 fund-raisers and operational staff)   Work would need to be undertaken on a long-term basis and would be more successful in terms of raising “project funding” rather than “revenue costs”. Of the Waterways Trust monies noted above, approximately one third was available for “revenue costs”. 

6  Lotteries Commission

Internal advice has been taken on how the various Lottery arms might view a bid for funding for or from a National Trails Trust.   Recent policy changes have meant that funding has taken on a more regional flavour so a national organisation would not be a priority recipient.   There will also be resisitance   to using Lottery grants to replace central government funding.   It may be possible to undertake high-level influencing work to allow funding to take place.

7  Other sources

7(i) European Funding has been explored but since these funds are targetted either geographically or in an output specific way (largely for job creation), internal advice is that this is not a feasible option.

7(ii) Legacies will take 4-5 years to become a significant source of income and this form of income is notorious for suffering huge and unpredictable fluctuations from year to year.   Donors may also wish to target their legacy towards a particular Trail so a Trust would need to be able to deal with such bequests.

Annex 5

BASIC BUSINESS PLANS FOR TRUST

NB       All figures are likely to be under estimated.

Assumption made that NTOs would remain located in HA premises and that this would be part of HA financial input to Trails as at present

Annex 6

Current staffing cadre

Spending on   established and new National Trails by Countryside Agency (prev. Countryside Commision)

* Figures not available

Annex 7

CURRENT MANAGEMENT REGIME

1   The current regime is based upon each individual Trail setting its own priorities on an action plan (usually 5 years).

2   Bids are made to the Countryside Agency on an annual basis with highway authorities being responsible for the majority of work carried out.

3   “Meeting the Grade” standards are used as the basis of quality and each Trail carries out its own marketing, fund raising etc

PROPOSED MANAGEMENT REGIME

1   National priorities will be set for the whole family of Trails using information gathered from users, management groups, Trails Officers and the Countryside Agency and budget allocation will be made on this basis.

2   Bids for funding will be made over multiple years when possible – perhaps when a Trust is fully operational

3   “Meeting the Grade” will be revised to take account of user demands and will be the definitive guide to standards.

4   Fund-raising will be carried out on a local and national basis