Breadcrumbs
Minutes of the 23rd Meeting of the Countryside Agency
Present: Pam Warhurst, Deputy Chair
Kate Ashbrook
Janet Bradbury
Dr Victoria Edwards
Peter Fane
Luna Frank-Riley (items 1-6)
Tony Hams
Rt Rev Graham James
Prof Philip Lowe
Sue Stapely
In attendance: Richard Wakeford, Chief Executive
Margaret Clark, Director
David Coleman, Director
Sarah Sleet, Director
Jon Tomlinson, Director
Isobel Coy, Head of Media & Parliamentary Affairs
Wendy Thompson, Head of Management Support Group
CHAIRMAN'S INTRODUCTION
The Deputy Chairman welcomed staff from the Countryside Agency East of England to the meeting and thanked Tim De-Keyser, Julia Masson, Cindy Winn and all others who had helped to organise an excellent and informative visit the previous day.
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies had been received from Ewen Cameron (Chairman), Martin Doughty, Catherine Mack and Francis Rowe.
In the Chairman's absence, Pam Warhurst, chaired the meeting. She spoke for all present in sending best regards to Ewen and hoped he would recover from his operation in time for the next Board meeting.
2. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD 20 SEPTEMBER 2001
Tony Hams reported that he had been present for the whole meeting. The minutes were approved subject to that correction and were signed by the Deputy Chairman.
3. MATTERS ARISING
The note on the consultation with rural stakeholders at the end of the matters arising paper referred to a draft letter in the members folders. The Board were broadly content with the draft letter. They wanted the role of the new body to be very clear and clearly distinguished from that of the Agency. They also said it was wrong to include two "regional" members who would rotate between the four categories. They felt that each of the four subject categories should have regional representatives within them. It was wrong to categorise people as regional or national when in practice many people were (and should be) both.
AP00/52
The Board sought clarification on where savings would be made within the Wider Welcome programme if the full cost of implementing Part I of the CROW Act was not met by the Government. They were reminded that at the last meeting they had agreed that savings would be made from the budgets for National Trail maintenance and Rights of Way grants rather than by cutting other programme budgets. However, DEFRA were still considering how the full costs could be met and so it was hoped that this would not be necessary.
AP01/09
Pam Warhurst reported that she had signed 86 maps depicting likely open access land that week. The formal consultation would be launched with a media event in November.
AP01/37
The Board were informed that the draft Corporate Plan had been submitted to the Minister, Alun Michael, and his comments were awaited. The Board would need to approve any changes before the plan was submitted for final approval. Richard Wakeford would keep them informed of any developments.
4. STRATEGIC APPROACH TO LOTTERY WORK (AP01/38)
Sarah Sleet introduced the paper which took stock of what the Agency had achieved with lottery funds and made recommendations about how to be most effective in the future. There was a 100 per cent success rate in Agency grant applications but this had been achieved with considerable time and effort. Nevertheless Lottery money provided substantial additional resources to the Agency which allowed it to pursue a more ambitious agenda. Although not mentioned in the paper, it was noted that the Heritage Lottery Fund regionally funded grants worth £1 million, which should be not be forgotten as a funding source and that the Agency's regional offices should maintain contacts with the HLF regional committees as there is much synergy in the respective strategy's and agendas. The paper recommended that the Agency concentrated its efforts on a small number of ambitious bids (paragraph 8) and an influencing strategy (paragraph 11).
In discussion the following points were made:
a. The paper was helpful in identifying the indicative costs of making a bid although it was recognised that these were not the full costs. The transaction costs are clearly high for the lottery and for applicants. Although there were some questions about the public value of the lottery as a source of funding it still made sense to lever funds to support Agency programmes.
b. There were often PR benefits associated with being involved with successful lottery schemes which helped to raise the profile of the Agency's work.
c. The earlier the Agency was able to be involved in schemes the more effective it was likely to be.
d. The Agency already approaches a broad range of potential funders, targeting business and Europe as well as the Lottery and a member of staff had recently been appointed to look at European funding. However, further thought could be given to using the Corporate Plan as a Prospectus to a whole range of potential funders including the European Commission, Arts Council and individual investors. The Agency could be bolder in asking national funders how they would invest in the national prospectus for the countryside.
e. The Agency needed to discuss a fund-raising strategy which identified which sort of projects it wanted to be associated with and which investors it would accept funds from. This was needed to guide staff in the process of winning funds.
f. The Agency had responded to recent consultations on the process of applying for lottery funds and had supported proposals to streamline the process and to develop a common application process. It should continue to use its influence to make the process simpler, particularly for applications from small community groups. Too much time was taken up in completing complex forms and making detailed applications. A high proportion of the costs to the Agency were to work with communities to work up the detailed bids.
Summing up the discussion, the Deputy Chairman said that the Agency had:
- agreed with the areas of mutual interest in paragraph 8 of the paper;
- agreed the influencing programme in paragraph 11 of the paper;
- suggested that officers look at using the Corporate Plan as a funding prospectus, while bearing in mind the constraints in being a Government funded body;
- suggested that the Board consider a funding strategy which guided staff on which sort of investment was acceptable and whether any funding bodies should be avoided;
- advised that the Agency should use its influence to seek to streamline the application process further for rural communities.
5. NATIONAL PARK FUNDING ADVICE TO GOVERNMENT (AP01/39)
(In attendance Paul Walshe and Richard Partington)
Introducing the paper, Paul Walshe said that the Agency had a statutory duty to advise the Secretary of State on funding for National Parks corporate plans and funding. Last year the Board had agreed that a 80:20 formula should be adopted for two years (80% of the available budget was allocated against indicators and the remainder was distributed on a discretionary basis). The paper was therefore about the distribution of around £350,000 which was calculated on the assumption of a 6.3% increase to the current National Park grant. He noted that steady progress had been made towards reaching the level of funding recommended by the Edwards' Panel in 1990, but there was still some way to go. This, and other issues in relation to funding, would need to be picked up in the Agency response to the DEFRA National Parks Review which would be the subject of a seminar later in the day and a separate paper at the November Board meeting.
In discussion the following points were made:
a. It was right for the Agency to remain committed to the funding objectives of the Edwards' Committee.
b. Although the 80:20 model was not ideal it was accepted that it had already been agreed and should be adhered to for the coming year. Members should bear in mind that the 20%, which was the subject of the paper, only amounted to around £48,000 per park. The process for agreeing the distribution had improved and the round of meetings with the national park authorities was especially welcome. If the Agency was to continue to have a role in advising the Government on national park funding that approach should be developed.
c. The funding model was complex but would be helped if parks' bids were put on a more consistent basis. The current process made it difficult for staff to make reasoned recommendations and for the Board to understand what they were approving. The paper was opaque in that respect. However, as the bids were based on Best Value Performance Plans and had been prepared following individual meetings with the parks, the Board were satisfied that the recommendations had been made on a sound basis. In addition, the bids reflected Agency and Government priorities following guidance to the parks on plan preparation.
d. It was in the interest of the parks and the Agency to work together to achieve a more businesslike and transparent process. Views on the process, along with the other points referred to in paragraph 10 of the paper, would need to be picked up in the Agency's response to the National Parks Review.
e. The bids had been prepared before Foot and Mouth Disease and DEFRA had advised that they would consider bids relating to Foot and Mouth outside the National Park grant process. Nevertheless there were references to Foot and Mouth in one of the bids and ANPA were expecting the settlement to reflect well on the parks which had responded positively to Foot and Mouth Disease by reopening public paths. This should be referred to in the letter to Alun Michael.
Summing up the discussion, the Chairman said that the Agency had agreed:
- that improvements to the funding process were needed and the points made in paragraph 10 of the paper should be made to the DEFRA review of National Parks;
- the advice to Government, reiterating the 80:20 approach, and setting out priorities for the discretionary 20% of the National Park Grant;
- that officers work with DEFRA officials to help ensure that the Board's advice is applied once the final allocation is decided;
- that the letter to Alun Michael should be revised to refer to the way parks had responded to Foot and Mouth.
6. POLICY COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF FARMING AND FOOD (AP01/40)
(In attendance, David Brooke)
Introducing the paper David Brooke reported that the draft evidence to the Policy Commission had been prepared to a tight deadline and the final response had to be submitted within a week. The Commission was then required to report to the Government by Christmas. The Agency had been advised that the Commission were seeking practical proposals and did not want to be swamped in detail. The draft response aimed to achieve this by presenting a core message, four principles and 7 action points which all had practical measures associated with them.
In discussion the following points were made:
a. The paper provided a good starting point but the draft response did not do justice to the broad remit of the Agency or its experience on the ground on initiatives such as land management initiatives such as Eat the View. The task of weaving a wide ranging set of issues into the response was challenging and needed more time.
b. The core message in the paper was opaque and the structure of the paper needed further work to make the Agency's case more clearly. The language of press releases and briefings should be kept very simple but the evidence itself would need to include technical detail.
c. The Policy Commission was likely to concentrate on the immediate future of policy (the next three years) whereas a long-term review was really required. The Government needed to provide a mechanism for providing a truly visionary look at farming and food.
d. The rate of the pound sterling and the historically low level of farm incomes should not be overlooked. The evidence needed to address the competitiveness of UK agriculture and what was required to revive consumer confidence. The draft evidence was too supply-orientated. In the Lake District, for example, farmers needed to diversify into tourism; in the Fens farmers needed to address modern food processing.
e. The Agency response should comment on the age profile of farmers and should make practical suggestions about providing older farmers with a way out of the industry whilst attracting new young farmers.
f. The Agency needed to decide whether to defend the Rural Development Plan approach. If Rural Development Funds were preferred to commodity payments our response must make the case more robustly. The Agency should also press for multi-functional land management. Whole farm plans might be the key to this.
g. The practical proposals put forward by the Agency should be split between those dependent on CAP reform and those which were not. The response should also refer to the UK share of the EC funds which was currently under-claimed.
h. The draft evidence said nothing new about diversification and was too general. It didn't recognise what was actually involved and how this varied geographically.
i. The Agency should be more specific about what was meant by institutional modernisation. It was the time to be brave about which bodies were redundant.
j. The response also needed to take into account the Haskins report.
k. The response should be followed up by an influencing strategy which involved meetings with Sir Don Curry and Ministers as well as local radio and national media coverage. The main message was that billions of pounds had been invested in agriculture but in the wrong ways. The same amount of money was still needed in the countryside but needed to be invested in a way that secured benefits that the public clearly wanted and which farmers could earn a return on.
Summing up the discussion, the Chairman said that the Agency had agreed that the draft response needed to be more persuasive and needed to take account of the comments made around the table. Members were invited to send any further detailed comments to David Brooke who would redraft and then submit to the lead Board member, Victoria Edwards and Deputy Chair, Pam Warhurst for approval. The response was not expected to rewrite Agency policy but should draw on the Agency's agreed sustainable land management policy. The covering paper should make it clear that the time had come to stop reviewing and to put proposals into action.
7. RURAL PROOFING: PRE-BUDGET SUBMISSIONS (AP01/41)
(In attendance, Marilyn Rawson)
Introducing the paper Marilyn Rawson summarised the actions taken to date to put the Agency in a position to influence pre-budget submissions. This involved setting up a working group, chaired by Victoria Edwards, recruiting an economist and starting to work with partners. The Board's view was sought on the strategy for influencing the pre-budget submission process and the priorities for tax changes.
In discussion the following points were made:
a. The Agency had a useful role to play in influencing fiscal policy and as the paper suggested, should do this in partnership with other organisations. This was something which could be developed over time. The proposals in the paper could be achieved within the current Corporate Plan allocation.
b. The focus should be on up to five issues. This should be overseen by the group chaired by Victoria Edwards but where a detailed response was made it should be presented to the full Board for approval. The Board were informed that earlier in the year, a response had been sent to the Treasury to specific questions raised about the Agency's Inheritance Taxation work.
Summing up the discussion the Chairman said the Agency had agreed the process set out in the paper and that the measures identified in the Annex to the paper were the right issues for the Agency to consider.
ITEMS FOR INFORMATION
9. RURAL WHITE PAPER MONITORING REPORT (AP01/42)
The report provided an opportunity for Board members to see the report which was submitted to DEFRA. The full Agency half-year report on its own performance against corporate plan targets would be presented to the November meeting.
The reference to staff shortages was questioned and the Chief Executive explained that this was a result of the time it took to recruit to vacancies, of which there had been quite a few over the past year.
10. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next Countryside Agency Board meeting would be on Thursday 15 November 2001.
