LAKE DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK PARTNERSHIP
FARMING AND FORESTRY TASK FORCE
Notes of the second meeting of the Task Force on 1 June 2011
1. Introduction/welcome
See Annex 1 for list of attendees and apologies.
Bob Cartwright reiterated the Task Force’s purpose, scope and membership. He emphasised the value of direct dialogue with land managers and the importance of action based on those conversations.
2. Notes of meeting on 20 January 2011
Received as an accurate summary.
3. Membership
· Bob welcomed the fact that all suggested invitees from the first meeting had accepted the invitation and were present.
· There were no additional suggestions for membership, but the offer remains open for others who have a contribution to make.
4. Current Issues
(i) Review of Forestry Regulations
Introduction by Chris Starr, Chair of the Review Group. The emphasis is on better and more effective regulation, not deregulation. The review is limited to England. Key stakeholders have been contacted for suggestions and input. 500+ ideas have been put forward so far.
Key issues for consideration highlighted:
(a) There are many well managed woodland estates, and several are already members of quality assurance schemes. Question: is regulation required or necessary for such sites?
(b) There are 600,000 ha of unmanaged woodland in England. How can we direct resources to those sites? Should the focus be on managing existing woods rather than creating new woodland?
(c) New woodland creation. Notwithstanding (b), there is interest in creating woodland. How is this best resourced? What are the barriers to supporting woodland management and creation?
Issues and comments:
· Does this mean more resource available to direct to woodland managers or looking at more effective processes?
· Could a focus on unmanaged woodland penalise those who have managed woodland well previously?
· In the National Park grants should reflect the landscape value of woodlands and therefore receive higher levels of support.
· Has the grant system and regulatory context remained tuned to traditional woodland management and not considered the multiple benefits of woods and products?
· Definition of well-managed and unmanaged woodland – a variety of perceptions exist which could be an issue: timber, conservation, biodiversity, fuel, access.
· Peculiarity of grant sources from HLS and EWGS – need to consider rationalisation and a single scaleable scheme with less complicated criteria.
· Farm woodland support – limited to 10 years with no maintenance/management support for aftercare. This does not encourage take up of schemes.
· Useful to have access to longer term grants, in turn linked to long term management plans - useful for meeting climate change and carbon agenda.
· Continuity is vital for policy – objectives of management need to be seen through to conclusion. Government changes and subsequent policy change do not support this approach.
· Natural England pressure to plant woodland to allow access to HLS, but no support exists after 10 years.
· Distinction between agricultural and woodland management needs to be more flexible and the two grant schemes need to reflect that it is about land management and wider benefits overall.
· Organisational structure of key agencies like Natural England and Forestry Commission and their schemes perpetuate the issue of two separate management prescriptions and grants.
· It might be useful to create a single Land Management organisation to support farming and forestry.
· Establishing a common understanding of farming needs and forestry needs for all parties would help reduce conflicts of interest.
· Should all woodland/forestry support come from one organisation/grant scheme to optimise benefits?
· Unmanaged woodlands could be a result of the limited availability of skilled contractors and overly prescriptive health and safety requirements.
· Limitations for farm tenants whose long term security for investment in woodlands may limit incentive or interests.
Chris Starr summarised – there is an apparent need to focus on land management and avoid compartmentalising activities. The most desirable outcome is well managed woodlands that deliver multiple benefits, all achieved through effective use of resources.
Action: All still able to respond to Consultation, which closes on 13June 2011. See: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/forestry.nsf/byunique/infd-8d8gje
(ii) Independent Forestry Panel
Introduction by Andrew Herbert (Lake District National Park).
The Panel was launched in March 2011. Its terms of reference and panel membership had been circulated to the Task Force. The Panel’s interim report is due in autumn 2011, with a full report in April 2012.
The Panel have met twice – the minutes of the meetings are available on Defra’s website: http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/forestry/panel/
There has been a public call for views until 31 July 2011. The Panel plans visits to the Forest of Dean, Northumberland and Kent. The Task Force felt strongly that the Panel should be invited to Cumbria. FLD and Save our Forests have already invited Panel with 1½ day itinerary, including Grizedale, Whitbarrow, Iggesunds and Lowther.
The Task Force felt National Park forestry should be the focus of any visit to Lake District. The Panel’s initial visits are on single issues whereas the Lake District can offer an example of integrated multi-purpose forestry. The Farming & Forestry Task Force can help shape the agenda through conversation with the Panel and demonstrate the range of public goods provided.
Action: Bob Cartwright to invite the Panel to meet the Task Force.
(iii) Defra Uplands Policy Review
Simon Humphries (Natural England) introduced highlights for discussion:
a) How are hill farmers supported? The policy helpfully developed a coherent upland theme. The content of future programmes in the context of CAP reform would be crucial. Successful implementation needed improved, joined-up working by Natural England. Improved integration between agencies would achieve multiple benefits and be more effective.
b) Achieving multiple benefits – public goods. The Natural Environment White Paper is due to be launched in June 2011. How will wider benefits be recognised in payment schemes? Natural England need to establish consistent management regimes. The National Park’s challenge will revolve around the interpretation of sustainable development and the facilitation of partnership and rural tourism.
c) Supporting upland communities. What does neighbourhood planning mean and deliver for this area? The National Park is piloting locality working with central government support as a “front runner” in Coniston and Torver.
Issues and comments:
· What is the definition of upland? The document refers to the Less Favourable Area boundaries.
· What value does National Park put on farming for the Lake District? Help is required to promote understanding and value of farming to local economy.
· We need to look at effective and prioritised support to deliver multiple benefits.
· Comments by the Lake District National Park CEO about sheep reduction do not help relationships. The LDNPA should promote farming as other NPAs do, for example on local food production. Farmers’ perception of the National Park Authority as anti-livestock is an issue.
· Farming needs to be championed – joint support to create pride and to be valued. Avoid complication/confrontation.
· Lake District farming underpins value of area and does not always lend itself to a modernisation agenda.
· Public goods are a consequence of this area’s agricultural approach. Measuring its ‘public goods’ value is important but currently lacking.
· Natural England’s Bassenthwaite Vital Uplands pilot project to assess and value public goods (ecosystem services) helps to start the valuing process.
· An issue is the lack of ecosystem services payments – we need a pilot in a given area that tests the real viability and clarify what it can achieve. Funding bid required to do this.
· Livestock is the core of economic farming in the area and this needs a review to truly identify value and approach.
· Collective agreements between farmers are required to deliver valley/catchment objectives.
· Future generations of farmers are needed to continue the required delivery of land management through agriculture. This needs support/encouragement.
Action:
v Invite Uplands Policy Review team to meet the Task Force.
v Bob Cartwright to discuss NPA policy stance and public perceptions with Richard Leafe.
v Develop proposal to fund an ecosystem service pilot in a defined area of Lake District. The Task Force should invite a presentation on the outcomes of the Bassenthwaite Vital Uplands pilot as a basis for considering further demonstration projects.
v Natural Environment White paper will be on the agenda for the next meeting to consider how its objectives can be achieved.
(iv) Valley Management – Borrowdale: Terry McCormick
This pilot scheme had been driven by flooding in November 2009. Partnership and planning with local people had proved essential to developing a successful action plan.
A consultation event is planned for 9 June 2011 on the pilot’s 10 learning points (circulated at meeting). The Group will evolve from a planning and consultative group to become a delivery group from Summer 2011.
Issues and comments:
· Great approach – but shouldn’t be just a Borrowdale approach. Need to consider other National Park valleys and areas.
· Need for action not just talk by agencies.
· Cumbria Woodlands research to see how woodland planning can mitigate against flooding events. Looking at locations/sites to help control, hold back, or slow up water flows.
5. Matters for future meetings:
Ø Invitation to the Forestry Panel.
Ø Invitation to the Defra Uplands Policy Review Team.
Ø Natural Environment White paper.
Ø Iggesund combined heat and power briefing.
Ø RDPE future funding programmes.
Ø Testing ecosystem services/public goods funding pilot. Bassenthwaite Vital Uplands Pilot briefing by Natural England.
Ø Deer initiative briefing – status/population of deer in Lake District by Cumbria Woodlands.
Ø Sheep stocking rate issues and multiple benefit approach debate.
Ø Localism.
Ø Affordable housing for people in farming and forestry.
6. Date of next meeting:
5 October 2011 at 6.00 p.m. at the Lake District Visitor Centre, Brockhole.
Annex 1
Lake District Farming and Forestry Task Force:
Attendance List and Apologies on 1 June 2011
Attending:
Chris Brown Deepdale Hall
Everley Buckley CLA
Bob Cartwright LDNPA (Chair)
Douglas Chalmers CLA
Mark Eccles LDNPA
Jack Ellerby FLD
Helen Forrester NFU
John Fryer-Spedding Mirehouse
John Hayton LDNPA
Andrew Herbert LDNPA
Simon Humphries Natural England
Peter Irving Hutton Roof Sawmills
Ian Jack Lowther Estates
Neil Johnson National Trust
Terry McCormick ACT
Trevor Marsh Environment Agency
Edward Mills Cumbria Woodlands
Graeme Prest Forestry Commission
Will Rawling Cumbria Farmers Network
Joe Relph Yew Tree Farm, Borrowdale
Myles Sandys Graythwaite Estate
Chris Starr Invited to talk on review of Forestry Regulations
Carl Walters Cumbria Farmers Network
Apologies:
Will Cockbain NFU
Sam Hodgson Glencoyne Farm
Mike Innerdale National Trust
Jonny Lowe Iggesund
Hamish Macleod Howie Forest Products
Steve Ratcliffe LDNPA
Stephen Swailes Iggesund
Also invited:
Will Barden W Barden Biomass
Ken Bell Loweswater Care Project
John Geldard Low Foulshaw Farm
Tony Hackney BSW Timber
Ken Pears Caldbeck Commoners