Contact: Merrick Denton-Thompson, ext 6826

1. Summary

1.1 The following decision is sought:

Approval of the principles set out in the discussion paper 'A Vision for the Countryside' and agreement to taking the issues forward by:

(i) adapting the paper to dwell on the principles rather than rehearse which level of Government should deliver management plans and support to farmers (without losing sight of what County Councils can bring to the process);

(ii) seeking to build a broad level of support to the principles set out in the discussion paper from the Government, local government and from various interest groups, such as the Country Landowners and Business Association; and

(iii) investigating a research and development IT based project to empower farmers to prepare their own farm management plans.

2. Reason

2.1 Local authorities, including the County Council, have new statutory obligations to prepare land management plans for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs). In Hampshire AONBs cover 21% of the area of the county (excluding the New Forest). However, the County Council is being required to prepare such plans covering activities over which it has little or no influence, and therefore a new approach is needed if these long term management plans are going to be effective.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 Not applicable.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or a Member or Officer consulted - Not applicable.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: Date:

Councillor T K Thornber

7. Introduction

7.1 The enclosed report about the future of the English countryside, and a possible new role for County Councils, was discussed at a meeting of the Leaders of South East Counties on 21 September 2001. The purpose of this paper is to report back on the outcome of the Leaders' deliberations and to suggest an outline as to how the County Council might take matters forward.

7.2 Hampshire is a major rural county and the issues addressed by this paper focus on the countryside as a whole. There is justification for putting in place strategic management plans to cover the whole county and not to confine activities to protected landscapes.

7.3 Public intervention into the countryside has been focused largely on food production and this has resulted in the demise of other aspects of the countryside. The paper argues that there is a strong business case for a radical change to public investment into the countryside with new opportunities emerging in tourism, access and employment.

7.4 The farming community has responded magnificently to the post war challenge of available and affordable food production. Society's aspirations for the countryside have changed and the farming community is best placed, given the right resources, to deliver the new agenda. The paper outlines a proposal to empower the farming community to re-engage with surrounding communities and enable farmers to prepare their own plans through an IT based `toolkit'.

8. South East Leaders

8.1 It was clear from the meeting that a few of the County Councils were not aware of the significance of the new obligations placed upon local authorities by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. The Leaders' meeting recommended that the Hampshire paper be referred back to all the individual authorities for comment and that it be also referred on to the County Council network and Local Government Association. The members for Kent and Surrey County Councils, in particular, spoke out in favour of County Councils becoming involved, bearing in mind the real changes that were happening in the countryside.

9. The Country Landowners and Business Association

9.1 A copy of the paper was sent to the regional officer for the Country Landowners and Business Association as a draft and the response was both immediate and very supportive.

10. Way Ahead

10.1 In order to take these matters forward it is proposed that:

(i) The Cabinet considers the issues raised in the discussion paper and approves the principles in the paper for further examination.

(ii) The County Council should seek a broad base of support from the Government, local government and outside organisations.

(iii) The County Council should seek to establish a research and development IT project designed to empower the farming community to access publicly held data and prepare farm management plans.

6718a/MD-T

SOUTH EAST COUNTIES' LEADERS' MEETING - 21 SEPTEMBER 2001

A VISION FOR THE COUNTRYSIDE: PAPER FOR DISCUSSION

Author: Merrick Denton-Thompson: Hampshire County Council

1. In Brief.

1.1 The purpose of this paper is to explore the future of the English countryside following the establishment of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). It discusses society's aspirations for the countryside and considers options for delivering an integrated approach to countryside management.

2. Background.

2.1 It is worth tracking the events following the foot and mouth epidemic which has had such a profound affect on certain parts of the country. The first response was designed to limit the spread of the disease, resulting in the closing down of the countryside. Following an analysis of the financial implications of this approach it became evident that tourism and other sections played a more significant role in the nation's economy than agriculture and the Government immediately tried to reduce any further damage to the economy by opening the countryside up again.

2.2 Perhaps the key issue arising from this sequence of events is the lack of acknowledgement that the "green and pleasant land" image of the U.K. is a priceless asset and is the foundation of the tourist industry. Over 25 million visitors came to the UK in 1999 and estimates suggest that the total tourism expenditure was around £61 Billion. Yet we have failed in our intervention systems in support of agriculture to make this crucial connection. Indeed it could be argued that the intervention systems surrounding the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) have exacerbated the decline in the quality of the countryside by focusing largely on a single issue that of food production at the expense of other aspects of the countryside. The loss of a strong sense of place and distinctiveness, a loss of biodiversity and the erosion of historic landscapes are now accepted as being detrimental to society's interests in the countryside.

2.3 In many ways the structure of Government departments has discouraged the integration of conservation objectives with those of food production. Over the years there have been a number of initiatives to bring them closer together - however the Government has now created the opportunity to ensure that environmental issues can now be truly integrated into land management systems by establishing the new department - DEFRA.

2.4 The production of food remains the single greatest beneficiary of subsidy in the countryside through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of approximately £3 billion, a fraction of which is invested into environmental benefits. The reform of the CAP was begun in the late 1990's under the banner of "Agenda 2000". There were, and still are, considerable pressures for CAP reform because of budgetary problems, enlargement of the European Union, pressure from the World Trade Organisation and increasing recognition of the considerable shortcomings of the old system, including the impact of the CAP on the environment.

2.5 The Agenda 2000 reforms were not as far-reaching as many had hoped. Nevertheless, the shift from production aid to support for the wider rural economy has begun. Last year, the UK Government secured approval for the "England Rural Development Programme 2000-2006", which includes more than doubling the spending on agri-environment schemes as well as new measures to develop and promote rural enterprise and diversification, better training and marketing and energy crops. Despite these increases the investment into agri-environment schemes remain at a low level.

2.6 The CAP will be reviewed mid-term (2003) and more fundamentally by 2007. Many organisations, including the UK Government, are already starting to think about what sort of agriculture and countryside they want to see in the future and what changes in the CAP are needed to achieve this. Many also see an opportunity to build alliances with like-minded organisations and Governments to press for more radical reform of the CAP.

2.7 The previous silo approach to policy delivery, through different Government Departments and agencies has often created shallow business justification, camouflaging true costs to society. The issues surrounding diffuse pollution and the devastating loss of biodiversity which cannot adequately be quantified in financial terms are examples. However equally damaging are the range of public budgets that are lined up against each other - an example of this is the budgets of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board and the East Hants Joint Advisory Committee (managing the South Downs Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) doing their best to counter the damage caused to the countryside by government supported agricultural activities.

2.8 Reform of the CAP cannot be guaranteed and there remains the possibility that in 2007 further long-term reviews are planned for as a way to placate those pressing for reform. Under the current policy integrating conservation with food production remains an optional extra, this is despite the obvious connection between subsidy and environmental damage. It seems not an unreasonable ambition to seek compliance with basic environmental standards as a condition of any public intervention and supporting system.

3. World Trade and the Farmer.

3.1 Opening up world markets will put further pressure on reform of the CAP. The presumption will be against subsidy to ensure a `level playing field' in a competitive market place. There has to be some doubt whether UK farmers could ever compete on the world market without major changes to the countryside as there are structural impediments to agriculture including the diverse soil types and small scale nature of the British landscape. Furthermore there has never been an assessment of the impact on the countryside that would result in order to enable UK farmers to compete in this way. There must be some doubt that standards in human and animal welfare, standards in environmental quality or economic context could ever be equitable across world markets.

3.2 The farming community rose magnificently to the post-war challenge of providing affordable food and it is best placed to integrate food production alongside society's aspirations for the countryside. The influences of World Trade must be prevented from restricting support to the farming community to manage the countryside because food is only one of its products.

4. Today's Challenge and Transparency.

4.1 The English countryside is a by-product of the way we have chosen to manage and settle the land. It is essentially totally man-made; however society has failed to reach a consensus on what it wants for the countryside. Although the farming community continues to nurture the landscape the countryside remains vulnerable, with the continuing loss of distinctiveness, widespread destruction in the diversity of species and habitats and the on-going erosion of ancient monuments and historic landscapes; all still happening as a result of current farming practice. The Environment Agency is also particularly concerned at the level of diffuse pollution that is finding its way into aquifers and our rivers. At the same time there are new initiatives emerging for improving access to the countryside, through the CROW Act, for informal recreation in the interests of health and the quality of life of the nation.

4.2 The new business-like approach to nature conservation, through the production of Bio-diversity Action Plans, and new initiatives for accessing the countryside can only be delivered through a fundamental change in land management. Without that change and the commitment from the farming community these aspirations cannot be achieved. However a new self-imposed discipline amongst the farming community along with a new range of financial incentives will be pre-requisites to achieving widespread changes in approach.

4.3 Society's aspirations for the countryside need to be quantified and set out clearly for the farming community to respond to. At the same time, and because 95% of the population no longer has a direct involvement in farming, there is a need to provide a way for those involved in managing the countryside to inform the public of what is already being achieved. There is a need for transparency and trust on both sides to rebuild the connection between the general population and the farming community and a new framework for that to happen is beginning to emerge through the development of management plans for particular areas of countryside.

4.4 For good reason society has focused on the change to the countryside associated with development - the delivery of appropriate development has been achieved through the family of government guidance, development plans and development control. However changes to the countryside as a result of land management decisions, particularly over the last 50 years, have arguably been more damaging than the sum total of all development over the same period. The change has largely gone unnoticed by the public because it has been incremental, resulting from millions of day to day decisions. The loss of manpower and skills, mechanisation, the widespread use of chemicals, the nature of the market place and market certainty (not existing in other commercial sectors) - have combined to drive change over this period.

4.5 Unlike development plans, land management plans have a fragile place in the UK. National Park Authorities up until quite recently, have been the only authorities obliged to produce management plans by statute. However there is no obligation placed on anyone to implement the plans, apart that is from a general duties clause which is so unspecific as to be meaningless.

4.6 As from 1 May 2001, local authorities have a new obligation to prepare management plans for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty but again the new legislation fails to address the process of implementing these plans. It could be argued that local authorities are going to produce plans for activities over which they have little or no control and very little influence.

4.7 The Countryside Agency has just published for discussion its new "Strategy for Sustainable Land Management in England". The strategy sets out a range of objectives towards integrating conservation with food production systems and it promotes a new role for local authorities. The proposal is that land management plans for administrative areas are one of the outcomes of Community Strategies. Furthermore the Agency proposes that local authorities play a new role in supporting land management activities through grant aid on a farm by farm basis. Clearly such a proposal would require a very substantial investment to make a difference, however there is no detail about where these sort of resources come from.

4.8 A few local authorities have already prepared land management plans for their administrative area but for large counties such plans cannot be specific enough to provide the framework for individual farm plans. A refinement of the Agency's proposals would be to prepare land management plans for specific areas either based on character, such as the Chilterns, where the issues are similar and can be rehearsed in detail, or for areas where specific pressure is being experienced - such as extensive areas of urban fringe in a particular geographic location. Such a strategy would only work through local authorities, particularly County Councils and rural unitaries, operating together to prepare sub-county plans that might span a number of administrative areas.

4.9 Land Management plans based on landscape character is an obvious development of the new Map of England published by the Countryside Commission which sits comfortably beside the Natural Areas map produced by English Nature in the mid 1990's. These plans should assemble our ambitions to preserve and enhance the rich diversity in character of the English countryside, they should seek to manage and extend the importance the countryside has for nature conservation by including the Biodiversity Action Plans. In addition the management plans should seek to raise awareness of the importance of historic and cultural features in the countryside and plan for their protection. These plans should also embrace local authorities' new obligations for developing plans for improving the rights of way network.

5. The Farmer and Plans.

5.1 For such a process to work it will be necessary to change the farmer's common perception of the role of management plans. All too often the word "plan" creates an image of farmers having to apply for "planning permission" to undertake day to day management activities. The potential bureaucracy and the loss of control has built up a widespread and deep seated resistance to such a process amongst the farming community and amongst the organisations representing them, such as the National Farmers Union.

5.2 Perhaps a different approach needs to be taken where the whole farm management plan is the farmer's plan, his or her proposal to meet the objectives set out in the local authorities' sub-County management plan. Such a plan would contain certain fixed elements such as areas of semi-natural vegetation, or historic features, or distinctive characteristics and existing rights of way - the plan would give the opportunity to both involve and communicate to the wider community the farmers commitment to the protection and on-going management of these.

5.3 The farmer's plan would also set out the farmer's response to the sub-County management plan for improving and integrating management objectives. Although this would be at the farmer's discretion, the accredited farm plan would have to attract new financial incentives to secure the necessary changes in approach. For those farmers already deeply committed to these wider objectives and taking direct action, these management plans will map current activities with little or no change planned, however they would still attract the new funds to reward such a responsible approach. Existing agri-environment schemes could be absorbed into this new approach. For others, there would have to be a change to the current approach to land management or in effect they will suffer financial penalties by being unable to attract these new funds. How these changes are funded and where the skills needed to deliver a different agenda come from have, as yet, to be considered.

5.4 The Government could empower the farming community, to prepare their own plans. The logistics would suggest a lead in period for such a scheme of between 5 and 10 years. Setting the base line for attracting further public funding is perhaps the greatest challenge and to set a standard will require compromise on all sides. Can we arrive at a consensus of view as to what society wants from individual farms? Once this has been established one tried and tested way of communicating these standards to both the farming community and the public would be through demonstration farms that will vary from character area to character area.

6. Funding Options.

6.1 The most obvious option, which may require agreement from Europe, is to move swiftly to conditioning all intervention support to secure proper integration of conservation and access objectives with the food production system. This approach would move conservation management from being an optional extra to being a fundamental aspect of our agricultural policy. The condition of intervention could centre on the production of farm management plans that adhere to principles set out in the sub-County management plans and implementing them.

6.2 For the last 10 years or so the Government has urged the farming community to diversify, part of that strategy focuses on innovation within agriculture - new marketing strategies including local produce, farmers markets etc. Part of the strategy is about diversifying the economy of the farm with other businesses such as conversion of farm buildings for light industry, commercial offices and tourism. The objectives of diversification are focused mainly on economic survival and there is very little to encourage conservation management; although there has been a constant background observation that wealth in the farming industry means that farmers are more likely to invest in environmental initiatives. So diversification of the rural economy will not necessarily deliver conservation objectives.

6.3 With an annual tourist spend of £61 Billion there has to be a very strong business justification for providing new funds to secure the appropriate management of the countryside. Add to this the priceless aspects of genetic diversity of wildlife - if we look purely at the utilitarian opportunities to further the interests of mankind as only 13% of species have been scientifically explored. It is also difficult to quantify in financial terms the value of the countryside for informal recreation in the interests of health, social stability and life long learning. There remains a large number of unexplored opportunities to expand specialist tourism markets in the countryside including amongst others specialist interests like historic landscapes and archaeology.

6.4 It must surely be more sensible to support the farming community through attractive incentives than direct changes through regulation, which would need unacceptable levels of bureaucracy. We cannot expect change without paying for it and there has to be an overwhelming argument for a change in intervention either through redirection of investment or a totally new package of funds.

7. The Role of County Councils.

7.1 The suggestion by the Countryside Agency that local government should play a new role in securing the future of the countryside must be welcomed. Although this suggestion is not justified in the Agency's paper it is worth reflecting on what we could bring to the new responsibility should the Government support the proposal.

7.2 County Councils could:-

· Through the process of Community Plans make the connection between farmers and the wider community in the interests of accountability and raising of awareness.

· Provide IT based records as the basis for farm management plans, information data sets such as the Sites and Monuments Records, Biological Records, Character Assessments and the Definitive Rights of Way map.

· Provide advice centres integrating professional advise from ecologists, archaeologists, landscape planners/architects, recreation and economic development specialists.

· Develop the existing relationships with the farming community.

· Develop an agency arrangement with government departments to deliver a new agenda perhaps through a "one stop shop" facility.

· Demonstrate best practice in the management of County Council farmed and recreation based countryside sites.

8. Members Response.

8.1 A number of questions arise out of this paper and members are asked:-

(i) Should we, as a consortium of County Councils in the South East, seek to influence the future of the countryside?

(ii) Is the spirit of the contents of this paper supported?

8.2 Depending on the answer to those two questions, how should we proceed? Should we:-

(i) Offer support to the Countryside Agency and DEFRA to pilot the ingredients of a new approach?

(ii) Agree on the pattern of local management plans that would be needed to achieve these objectives?

13/09/01

SOUTH EAST COUNTIES' LEADERS' MEETING - 21 SEPTEMBER 2001

A Vision for the Countryside: Paper for Discussion

Summary

1. The purpose of this paper is to explore the future of the English countryside and consider ways of delivering an integrated approach to countryside management. The paper outlines a new role for County Councils for discussion.

2. The countryside is a by-product of the way we have chosen to manage and settle the land; it is totally man-made. However there is no system in place to co-ordinate society's aspirations for the countryside in a way that helps the farming community deliver such aspirations.

3. Intervention systems in agriculture have mainly supported the production of food and these systems have often led to the decline in a strong sense of place, a decline in biodiversity and erosion of important cultural remains. It is these characteristics that form the foundation of our tourist and leisure industries. A very strong business case can be made for society to invest through the farming community in managing these assets and exploring new ways for people to access them.

4. The Countryside Agency has just published its new "Strategy for Sustainable Land Management in England". The strategy proposes an integrated approach to land management and promotes a new role for local authorities. The proposal is that local authorities prepare land management plans as an outcome of Community Strategies. The Agency also proposes that local authorities support land management through grant aid on a farm by farm basis.

5. A few local authorities have already prepared land management plans, but for large complex counties, such plans cannot be specific enough. A refinement of the Agency's proposals could be to prepare plans for specific character areas, such as for the Chilterns. These would be sensitive enough to inform individual farm plans. If accepted this would need County Councils to operate together where such areas crossed County boundaries.

6. To make this process work it will be important to emphasise that farms plans are the farmer's plans - their plans that demonstrate how they are already responding, or how they intend to respond, to the new agenda for the countryside. However we cannot expect change without paying for it.

7. One option is to move swiftly to conditioning all intervention support to secure an integrated approach to land management. However another option is to find new resources, justified in a business-like way, to support the farming community. It must surely be more sensible to achieve change through attractive incentives than direct change through regulation which would need unacceptable levels of bureaucracy.

8. We could develop a powerful argument in support of County Councils delivering both the sub-County management plans and to work with farmers in implementing the plans on the ground. We can make the connection between the farmer and the wider community through Community Strategies. We have the integrated professional skills and the data needed to achieve the overall objectives. We already have a good working relationship with farmers and are best placed to deliver the new agenda through a "one stop shop" facility.

9. Should we, as a consortium of County Councils in the South East, seek to:-

(i) influence the future of the countryside, and

(ii) offer support to the Countryside Agency and the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to pilot a new approach to managing the English countryside.

13.09.01