Breadcrumbs
37th Meeting of the Countryside Agency - Minutes
Present:
Ewen Cameron, Chairman
Pam Warhurst
Kate Ashbrook
Norman Glass
Tony Hams
Alison McLean
Philip Lowe
Tayo Adebowale
Martin Doughty
Frances Rowe
Graham James
John Varley
In attendance:
Richard Wakeford, Chief Executive
Margaret Clark, Director
Tim Lunel, Director
Sarah Sleet, Director
Tracey Slaven, Director
Juliet Grace, Head of Management Support Group
Chairman’s introduction
1. The Chairman welcomed Countryside Agency staff and external observers.
Apologies for absence
2. Apologies had been received from Victoria Edwards, Janet Bradbury and Peter Fane.
Minutes of the meeting of 10 July 2003
3. The minutes of the 10 July Countryside Agency meeting were approved.
Chief Executive’s report and matters arising
4. The Board noted that the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) were at various stages of development with their tourism strategies. It would be important for regional staff of the Countryside Agency to keep in close contact with the RDAs and their work on rural tourism, and encourage use of countryside capital principles.
5. The Board noted that the volume of appeals in the latest open access area had been higher than forecast. This would result in more resources and increased costs for the Agency. There was a reputational risk for the Agency if the appeal success rate was seen to be high without good reason. The Chief Executive would circulate a report to Board members.
Month 5 Report April-August 2003 AP03/27
In attendance, Tim Lunel.
6. Introducing the paper, Tim Lunel explained that the quarterly reporting was presented in the agreed new format with the traffic light system to highlight areas of concern. The Month 5 report provided the position up to the end of August 2003. In the absence of a formal forecast at Month 5 the Agency was forecasting total expenditure in line with the budget of £111M. Total expenditure at the Month 5 point was behind forecast by £3.9M. The Quarter 2 report at the end of November would provide a detailed forecast from Programme Directors with recommendations to the Board for adjusting budgets.
7. The report only highlighted areas of work where outcomes were not on schedule. Three key risks had been identified to ensuring outcomes for the year remained on schedule – loss of influence as a result of the Rural Delivery Review with external partners, staff vacancies and recruitment and the potential implementation costs of the Rural Delivery Review. The Open Access work remained a high risk primarily because of the tight timescale that had been set.
8. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. The team was to be congratulated on providing a clear report that encapsulated the Agency’s complex business, and would help in future planning processes. It was recognised that the report had taken considerable effort and energy by officers across the organisation to produce, but was a useful tool both for the Agency and others. The report also demonstrated that the Agency was leading the way in the use of IT in reporting.
b. The costs associated with the Rural Delivery Review and its implementation should be recorded separately.
c. The Deputy Chair sat on the Project Board for Open Access. She believed the Project Board was working well, but needed confidence in the Agency’s ability to shift resources into this area of work and enhance the rate of productivity to the rate required to achieve PSA targets. The Month 5 suggested that the Wider Welcome and the open access team would achieve the interim milestones set for regional commencement. The appeals process was the most difficult because the numbers and complexity of the appeals were difficult to predict. The Project Board had agreed to immediate action to boost resources where needed
9. Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:
- the Board had approved the month 5 report for April to August 2003 and noted the main achievements to date;
- the Board had agreed that the distribution of the Agency’s full year budget should remain as in the corporate plan;
- the Board agreed that it was satisfied that a full outturn was possible despite the fact that at the end of August 2003 the Agency was behind its budget profile by £3.9M;
Draft Corporate Plan for 2004/05 to 2006/07 AP03/28
Closed Paper
A Research Strategy for the Countryside Agency – themes and principles AP03/29
In attendance, Nicola Lloyd.
10. Introducing the paper, Nicola Lloyd said that research was a key function for the Agency and should underpin all of the Agency’s work. Robust evidence was important. Sound research was critical to enable the Agency to influence other organisation’s work and research projects. The draft research strategy had been developed with input from across the organisation and was intended for the whole Agency, not for specific programme areas. It was intended as a living document with agreed but flexible principles to allow for an evolving process and the impact of wider social, economic and environmental factors. A full strategy would be brought back to the Board later in the year.
11. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. It was important that research was informed by the needs of the Agency’s policy areas. However, where research was delegated too far it would not be crosscutting in nature. When it was designed or commissioned by people not trained in research it was likely not to provide a satisfactory answer to the research question and to be wasteful. A mechanism needed to be in place to safeguard against this.
b. The distinctive role for the Agency in research was as an applied research and demonstration body. This required research to be both more centrally managed and strategic. The baseline evidence of the impact of what the Agency had achieved did not yet exist. Programme Directors needed to think about how research could be focused on what they were doing in programme areas and what achievements there have been.
c. Use of the research findings by the Agency was not covered by the Strategy. The Agency had a function as a retailer and wholesaler of research results to other organisations.
d. Some issues would not be researchable. Expert advice would be needed on what could be researched that would produce credible results. Close working was needed between policy areas and specialist researchers.
e. It would be important that research was not commissioned without close reference to the corporate goals of the Agency and without ensuring the research results would be of use to partners. All research undertaken should contribute to strategic priorities and be linked to the evaluation of programme areas.
f. The Agency’s research programme should take account of the research undertaken by other organisations, including Defra and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Duplication of effort should be avoided.
g. Summative and formative evaluation should be replaced with ‘process’ and ‘impact’.
h. The publication and dissemination of research results and notes did not do the research any credit. There was currently no clarity about where research notes were circulated to or why they were produced. The quality of the production of research notes was of variable quality.
i. It was important to concentrate on what was realistic and pragmatic in the short term, but there was recognition that the Agency’s central ‘hub’ could go further with centralising research in the future.
12. Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:
- the Board had approved the basis for the development of a research strategy for the Agency and expressed the Board’s desire for the research hub to have more control over the research process, and its work to be more strategic; and
- the Board would require a further Board paper to cover the above and to include detail of the proposed research themes for consideration in February.
Implementing the 2003 CAP Reform Package in England AP03/30
In attendance, Tracey Slaven, Bob Roberts and Richard Lloyd.
13. Introducing the paper, Tracey Slaven explained that the reform package agreed in Luxemburg had been more radical than expected, but fell short of an integrated development approach to the countryside. The Agency would work to influence implementation of the package in England through our advice to Defra, and this advice would lay the foundations for discussions about further reform, expected in 2006. The Agency’s role was as advisor and, as such, the Agency could be bold in that advice. The deadline for submissions to Defra on their consultation paper on the options for implementing the reform package in England was 15 October 2003.
14. There was no rationale for making payments through CAP to farmers where there was no public or land management benefit. The single payment scheme broke the link between payments and production (decoupling). The consequences of de-coupling were uncertain, but overall the benefits were expected to be positive. The Single Farm Payment could be made on the basis of historic payments under the current CAP support system or on the basis of land area, spreading payments equally across all eligible land. Defra was seeking views on which option would be most appropriate in England.
15. The Chairman, as a landowner and farmer, declared an interest and the Board agreed that his experience would positively help their discussions; their debate and the Agency’s advice would be unlikely in itself to bring the Chairman any personal gain or loss
16. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. A Single Payment Scheme based on historic entitlements would continue to reward more generously those farmers who had managed their land intensively in comparison with farmers whose had been careful to limit production in the interests of the environment.
b. An area based approach would, however, create winners and losers. Some farmers in the uplands who had extensive holdings might receive many times their current CAP payments under an area based approach. More information on winners and losers was needed before a definitive view on area payments could be made. One approach might be to introduce a ceiling on the gains or losses individual landowners could incur, as well as phasing in any changes over a number of years.
c. Some land currently farmed might not stay in production. It was important that the Agency communicated the message that this was not necessarily a bad thing. Land could be managed primarily to secure other benefits, including biodiversity and recreation and access with greater public benefits overall.
d. Progress on moving money from Pillar 1 (direct support) to Pillar 2 (rural development programmes) through modulation was disappointing and would limit opportunities to expand the England Rural Development Programme.
e. Up to 10% of the Single Farm Payment budget could be allocated to National Envelopes. Such funding had to be used to ameliorate any negative effects of decoupling but could provide opportunities to achieve environmental benefits and to support markets. Defra should be encouraged to think creatively about how National Envelopes could be used to best effect in England.
f. It was important for the Agency to be clear about what public benefits it believed were achievable from the reform of CAP and to promote these benefits, and not focus on the micro-management of how benefits would be delivered, beyond emphasising two guiding principles of equity and efficiency.
g. The Agency needed to fully understand what the impacts of the reform package would be on the economy, landscape and biodiversity of rural areas. Monitoring was required. This should be discussed with Defra and the other countryside agencies and a joint approach agreed.
16. Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:
- the Board had endorsed the direction of thinking in the paper and draft response to Defra on the options for implementing the CAP reform package in England;
- however, in the absence of clear evidence on the implications of our proposals, particularly on area-based payments, the response should focus on the principles outlined in paragraph 8 of the Board paper.
Compact between the Countryside Agency and the Rural Community Councils AP03/31
In attendance, Crispin Moor.
17. Introducing the paper, Crispin Moor outlined that a compact was an approach to formalising agreements with existing voluntary sector partners. The compact between the Agency and the Rural Community Councils (RCCs) was an example of good practice and fitted in with Defra’s, and wider government. It was to be a two-way process, un-bureaucratic, and designed to help implement the current Service Level Agreements. Work had begun on benchmarking RCCs so more would be known about their varied size, structure and operation to help improve their effectiveness. As a realistic approach future compact work with other voluntary sector organisations was a possible extension.
18. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. ACRE had been positive about the compact. The agreement was an important step forward for the Agency. A Board member appointment as Compact Champion would help ensure the process worked. Kate Ashbrook offered to represent the Agency and act as Champion.
b. The compact would change the relationship with the RCCs from a regional level to a national level. The current level of resource invested by regional staff in the relationship with RCCs was high. As a result of the compact less time should be spent at a regional level and Agency staff could apply their attention and energy to more demanding relationships with the regional development agencies, regional assemblies and others.
c. The risk to what could be achieved was high if there was a cut in the grant available to RCCs. RCCs provided a key rural network. They also had a national network and therefore were in a unique position to supplement the Agency’s work.
d. There was recognition that at a local level RCCs were not always the main support network.
e. Additional compacts with other organisations should be across the Agency’s work.
19. Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:
- the Board had approved the Compact between the Countryside Agency and the Rural Community Councils;
- the Board had approved the implementation plan;
- Kate Ashbrook would be appointed as the Compact Champion; and
- The Board noted the potential for the wider application of Compact principles.
South Downs National Park – Boundary Variation at Arundel AP03/32
In attendance, Tracey Slaven, Bob Roberts and Dave Thompson.
20. Introducing the paper, Tracey Slaven outlined that the Secretary of State for Transport’s decision not to support the Arundel by-pass had resulted in the proposed variation order to add to the South Downs National Park land at Arundel. The quality of the land had always been considered as appropriate for designation and the Board had agreed to consider its inclusion in the Park once the decision was known. A number of representations had been received, mainly from local authorities, against making the variation order. Further consultation was proposed if the variation order were to go ahead. A variation order would have associated costs, but was the best method to avoid a costly second public inquiry.
21. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. As the land has always been considered of high enough quality for inclusion in the National Park the Agency was under a duty to designate. It had been unable to action this until now due to the proposed development of a by-pass. As the development was less likely to go forward the Agency’s duty was to proceed with the variation order.
b. It was part of the legal obligation of making a variation order that the Chairman of the Agency consulted on this issue. This should start as soon as possible to avoid further costs at a later date through a possible second inquiry
c. The advice and representation made during the consultation process would be brought back to the Board in December. It was important that the Agency was clear about what was trying to be achieved through consultation.
22. Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:
- the Board had agreed to take forward a variation order on land at Arundel, subject to consultation;
- the Board had read all the representations received by today before making the decision to make a variation order;
- the Board would consider the results of the consultation process at the December Board meeting.
Annual Advice to Minister on National Park Authority Funding Allocations AP03/33
In attendance, Tracey Slaven.
23. Tony Hams and Martin Doughty both registered their interest as Chair and Deputy Chair of the Peak District National Park Authority. Tony Hams excluded himself from the debate. Norman Glass registered his interest as potential contractor for the All Parks Visitor Survey and left the room.
24. Introducing the paper, Tracey Slaven outlined that significant discussions had been held with Defra and that the Agency had agreed to suggest allocations based on two scenarios – a 2% inflation only settlement and an 6% increase on last years’ settlement. The funding model had changed and refocused on the needs of the Parks. The Parks had been asked to bid for access management as mainstream resources, through the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, would not be available to them. The All Parks Visitor Survey was considered to be critical in providing baseline information about use of the Parks. It was proposed to top-slice to pay for the Survey so no Park was dis-benefited, though some parks might see a reduction
25. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. It was critical that there was buy-in by the Parks for the All Parks Visitor Survey. The Agency needed to make a robust decision and ensure a baseline is established before the implementation of open access.
b. Neither model would address the issue of performance well enough. The basis for determining funding allocations on a performance-based element needed further work. Part of the Agency’s advice to Government should include a consideration of introduction of National Park Authority service agreements.
c. The risk to the All Parks Visitor Survey through lobbying, and the risks to the Parks of an inflation-only settlement should be set out in the Agency’s advice.
d. Access implementation would provide value for money. The Parks should strongly be encouraged to bid for open access ambitiously.
26. Summing up the debate the Chairman concluded that:
- the Board had agreed to the proposed advice on funding allocation to National Parks on an evidence-based approach;
- the Board had agreed that there should be a drive to relate performance of National Parks to future funding allocations, possibly through service level agreements; and
- the Board had agreed that the All Parks Visitor Survey was critical for the successful implementation of CROW in the National Parks.
Date and location of the next meeting
27. The next meeting of the Countryside Agency Board would be on 13 November 2003, Dacre House, London.
