Breadcrumbs
MATTERS ARISING REPORT 14 DECEMBER MEETING
The report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food was published on 28th January 2002. The summary of recommendations has been sent to Board Members.
There is much in the report that the Countryside Agency can welcome: indeed, many of the recommendations closely accord will Agency policy.
Over the next few months we anticipate that DEFRA will be holding a series of meetings with stakeholders to discuss the report and in particular practicalities of implementation and priorities for action. A full Government response can be expected later in the year, probably as part of a Strategy for Sustainable Farming.
(Prepared by Richard Lloyd, February 2002)
AP01/44 LOCAL GOVERNANCE
Further guidance to regional directors on regional leadership is in
preparation, taking into account points made by the Board, and a
copy will be sent to Board members when completed.
AP01/50 NEW FOREST NATIONAL PARK: DESIGNATION ORDER AND ADVICE ON SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS
The New Forest National Park Designation Order was signed on 24 January 2002. It will be submitted to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for confirmation on 25 February along with the Agency's advice on establishing a New Forest National Park Authority. The Order will be placed on deposit on 21 February, and will be advertised in accordance with the legislation, to allow people to make representations to allow people to make representations to the Secretary of State, who will then decide if to hold a public inquiry to determine any objections: if so this is likely to begin in autumn 2002.
The Chairman will host a lunchtime reception at the New Forest Museum on 20 February to mark the significant step of making the Order, and to thank all those who have contributed to the designation process. If any members would like to attend please contact Emma Peet for details.
(Prepared by Marian Spain, January 2002)
AP01/51 BUSINESS RISK MANAGEMENT UPDATE
Additional risk items and concerns were expressed at the Board Meeting. These have been added to the Risk Management Action Plan (Annex 1 of the December Board Paper). The Executive have considered this revised Plan and agreed suitable mitigation measures. See Annex 1 of Matters Arising paper for Countryside Agency 2002 Risk Management Action Plan
(Prepared by Mike Doughty, January 2002)
AP01/52 CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY
Details of the Board discussion and its decisions have been passed to staff through Principal Managers. We have asked for this to be an item for discussion at the next Regional Directors meeting to explore how the strategy will bite in the regions. We have also alerted our contract regional publicity advisers about the focus of our external messages over the next year and will discuss with them further when we meet them in February.
Meanwhile, we are working up detailed plans for each of the agreed priority messages so we can plan tactics and exploit external opportunities to push our line more effectively.'
(Prepared by Pam Gilder, January 2002)
AP01/53 RURAL SERVICES STANDARDS: FIRST ANNUAL REPORT
We are in discussion with DEFRA on the timetable and format of our recommendations on the rural service standard. DEFRA are proposing a series of meetings with the relevant government departments and the Agency will be involved in these.
(Prepared by Helen Thomson, January 2002)
AP01/56 COUNTRYSIDE FUNDING FOR THE RURAL COMMUNITY COUNCILS
The Minister of State for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael) approved the proposed change in the Agency's corporate plan to allow £400,000 to be transferred from the Vital Villages budget to increase the funds available to RCCs. Details have now been circulated to all RCCs. Where grants have been reduced we have implemented the 5% safeguard agreed by the Board. In order to contain the changes within the overall budget the six largest increases have also been phased. The full changes will be implemented from April 2003. Those who have received an increase have expressed their pleasure at the outcome but there have been some requests for further information from those RCCs which received a reduction in grant.
(Prepared by Helen Thomson, January 2002)
Annex 1
Countryside Agency 2002 Risk Management Action Plan
Risk | Prob | Impact | Action | Resp | |
Lack of credibility and failure to define a unique selling point | 1 | High | High | Mitigate - through corporate positioning strategy and Board / Exec activity with key partners. Communications requirements identified by all PMs. | Board & Exec PMs |
Outputs don't deliver outcomes. | 2 | High | Med | Mitigate - programme business plans match all outputs to defined outcomes. Directors monitoring. Achievement of outputs reported in quarterly review process. | PMs Dirs SS |
Unrealistic planning. | 3 | High | Med | Mitigate programme business plans are subject to quality assurance checks by Corporate Planning. Programme Business Plans are subject to quality assurance checks. | SS Dirs / CP |
Ill defined outcomes. | 4 | High | Low | Mitigate - Responsibility for named outcomes is accepted by individual members of the Executive Team. | Exec |
Inability to deliver outputs. | 5 | Med | Med | Mitigate - achievement of outputs reported quarterly through Corporate Planning process. | Exec PMs |
Lack of staff skills. | 6 | Med | Med | Mitigate - staff skills audit undertaken, improvement built into all training plans. | DC PMs |
Legal challenge. | 7 | Med | Med | Mitigate - take legal advice, act upon the advice, understand the risks involved, involve Board & Exec. | PMs |
Lack of product development. | 8 | Med | Low | Mitigate - new initiatives, lottery strategy, engage with Govt. | Board & Exec |
Loss of key staff. | 9 | Low | High | Mitigate - good HR policies and practices, staff retention and replacement policy in place. Suitable succession planning | DC |
Major fraud / Financial incompetence | 10 | Low | High | Mitigate - procedures, audit, training and staff awareness campaign. | JT |
Lower overall priority for countryside matters. | 11 | Low | High | Mitigate - the Agency needs to help keep countryside issues in the news. | Board & Exec |
Loss of infrastructure. | 12 | Low | Med | Mitigate - disaster recovery plan to be agreed and reviewed regularly. | JT |
External economic and political factors. | 13 | Low | Low | Accepted. | Exec |
Further Analyses of Risk elements
Risk | Considerations |
Lack of credibility and failure to define a unique selling point | The Agency's position rests on its ability to promote a wide range of Countryside related outcomes. There is a risk that its expertise could be seen to be diluted and that a clear identity will not be promoted. |
| Outputs don't deliver outcomes. | We may be unable to show that the identified outputs we are delivering are actually resulting in the sort of outcomes we seek within the Countryside. The data collection, monitoring and evaluation systems may be inadequate. There may be unforeseen outcomes produced from our outputs. |
| Unrealistic planning. | Our corporate planning and individual business planning process may be insufficiently robust to identify and remove unrealistic, conflicting or uncertain targets. |
| Ill defined outcomes. | Our outputs may not be sufficiently well defined to show how they have contributed to achievement of our planned outcomes. |
| Inability to deliver outputs. | We may not be able to deliver all our outputs because of lack of resources, conflicting priorities or unforeseen problems. Our ability to deliver may be oversold by others. |
| Lack of staff skills. | We may not have, or be able to acquire and retain, staff with the skills needed to carry out our wide range of responsibilities. Conversely we may have staff with skills we don't know about. |
| Legal challenge. | We are starting to develop processes where we are promoting the restriction or enhancement of the rights of others. This risks the possibility of legal challenge against ourselves. We may be accused of bias and there may be challenges on staff selection, support and development. |
| Lack of product development. | There is a risk that whilst concentrating on deliver of all current initiatives we do not invest sufficient time in developing new proposals with their necessary lead in times. |
| Loss of key staff. | Our staff are our key asset and the risk of losing key staff, in senior positions, at critical stages would impact on our ability to deliver. This would particularly apply to the unavailability of the Chairman or Chief Executive |
| Major fraud. | The political impact of a major fraudulent activity, perhaps related to a high profile grant. Financial inexperience or incompetence may apply. |
| Lower overall priority for countryside matters. | The risk that overall countryside issues will have a lower profile, perhaps because of urban or international developments |
| Loss of infrastructure. | The Agency could be constrained if it lost key elements of its infrastructure such as library, offices or IT services.Business continuity plans may be insufficient. |
| External economic and political factors. | External factors such as governmental change, FMD, economic, social and technical change. |
