shaping the nature of england: policy pointers from … the nature of england: policy pointers from...

Shaping the Nature of England: policy pointers from the Relu programme

2 Relu Briefing Paper 13 December 2010

1Relu Briefing Paper 13 December 2010

Shaping the Nature of England: policy pointers fromthe Rural Economy and Land Use Programme

Contents

3 An opportunity for change3 – Can we put a price on nature’s services?4 – What are the challenges?5 – How can we achieve joined-up policy?6 Tackling the erosion of our natural value6 – How can we protect and enhance England’s natural assets?8 – Are there novel mechanisms we could employ?8 – How can we reduce England’s footprint on the natural environment overseas?9 Building on and enhancing our natural value9 – How can the “Big Society” play a greater role?10 – What role can civil society play?11 – How can we create a smarter, greener economy?11 – How can we achieve joined-up thinking for land management?12 – How can we take a landscape-scale approach to land management?13 – How can we influence Europe and work internationally?13 – A written charter for land use14 Annex15 References

2 Relu Briefing Paper 13 December 2010Relu Briefing Paper 13 December 2010


An opportunity for change

The UK Government is taking a fresh look at how we manage our natural environment inEngland. This presents anopportunity to draw on evidencefrom across the Relu programmeand rethink entrenched practicesand approaches to land use,environmental assets and who should be involved indecision-making.

Can we put a price onnature’s services?

Land and water are keys to our survival. Theyare finite, but the demands we make on themare growing, along with our population. At thesame time, climate change is an additionalstressor within the system. An ecosystemsservices approach would provide an over-arching approach to managing these vitalresources and would help us to ensure thatmultiple benefits are delivered from any onearea. We need to recognise and reward landmanagers for providing all ecosystem services,including those which are public goods and notcurrently rewarded within the market.

An ecosystem services approach is deliberatelyholistic and recognises the value of all the diverseecosystem services provided by any one area ofland – whether ‘provisioning’, ‘regulating’,‘cultural’ or ‘supporting’. All existing and potentialecosystem services should be regarded aslegitimate, and be fully reflected in decision-making. This approach also usefully emphasisesthat real environmental limits must be respectedif land is to continue to provide a wide range ofecosystem services into the future.

The values which society today places ondifferent ecosystem services are demonstratedin current market interventions andenvironmental legislation, and in associatedpolicy and funding mechanisms whichincentivise specific services, or regulatedamaging activities. For example, foodproduction has been valued more highly thanbiodiversity, landscape beauty, water quality orother services; this is still reflected in the relativebalance of funding for Single Farm Paymentsand agri-environment schemes. A morebalanced approach to priorities betweendifferent ecosystem services in future wouldlead to a shift in such relationships.

Relu projects show that adopting an ecosystemsservices approach will help policy-makers to:

— Identify and quantify the range of servicesprovided by land and water under differentmanagement options, drawing on evaluationsof diverse data sets for any one area.

— Understand the synergies and trade-offsbetween the different types of benefits andcosts associated with different options forland and water management.

— Reconcile competing objectives with policymeasures which reward land managers forproviding environmental public goods thatare not rewarded by markets for food, fibreand energy.

— Appreciate how benefits and costs aredistributed among different public and privateinterests, facilitate dialogue among them, andshow what can and cannot be achievedthrough collaborative working.

— Design and promote new forms of land andwater management that can deliver intendedoutcomes more cost-effectively.

— Design targeted policies that reward land andwater managers for providing a wider range ofbeneficial services, within a single framework.

— Support the ‘joining up’ of hithertofragmented policy objectives and fundingmechanisms.

— Adapt policies to future challenges (political,economic, social, technological, legal andenvironmental), incorporating newknowledge as it becomes available.

Relu projects have adopted several approachesto valuing ecosystem services. However, it isclear that valuation techniques for non-marketbenefits have weaknesses, and may be betterused to inform rather than determine decisions.A pragmatic way forward is to be guided by thecost of the actions required to achieve a desiredservice such as biodiversity maintenance orflood alleviation. Adopting this approach couldlead to payments for the provision ofenvironmental public goods which reflect thetrue cost of providing different ecosystemservices rather than the opportunity costs offarming the land.

An opportunity for change

What are the challenges?

We face multiple, incremental environmentalchallenges including biodiversity loss andwater quality, alongside climate anddemographic change. If we are to tackle thesein the spirit of the “Big Society”, we must movetowards an Engage-Deliberate-Decideapproach (instead of Propose-Announce-Defend), to engage people more effectively.This has to be done by means of moreintegrated thinking, and within EU and UKpolicy frameworks. Only by taking all thesedimensions into account can we find effectiveways forward.

In the 20 years since the last Environment WhitePaper from a UK Government, the context haschanged dramatically. Overcoming the sheerinertia of two decades of policy to focus ontomorrow’s problems rather than yesterday’swill be a huge challenge. Nevertheless, it will becritical that long-standing policy frameworks,and their associated mindsets and mechanisms,are adapted to the strategic challenges ofclimate change, demographic changes,biodiversity loss and water quality.

Relu research underlines the need to recognisethat these challenges all have political,economic, social, technological, legal andenvironmental dimensions. These cannot beeffectively tackled by the traditional linear pathof ‘Propose-Announce-Defend’ (diagnosis,development of preferred options by experts,public consultation, a political decision, andimplementation). The more sophisticatedapproach of ‘Engage-Deliberate-Decide’ will beneeded if organisations and individuals,including land managers and local communities,in particular, are to be engaged effectively intackling the challenges.

Established policy frameworks that willrequire adaptation to deliver an effectiveecosystem services approach to currentand future strategic challenges include:

—The Common Agricultural Policy: inparticular, strengthening agri-environmentschemes to enable comprehensive andeffective delivery of critical ecosystemservices that are environmental public goodsand not delivered through markets.

—The Common Fisheries Policy, and UK fisheries legislation: in particular,improving sustainability of wild fish stocksand developing alternative sources of fishprotein (e.g. through sustainable forms offish-farming).

—The Water Framework Directive andassociated water quality legislation: inparticular, delivering integrated,catchment-scale collaboration among the diverse interests involved in land and water management.

—Soil policy: in particular, developingstrategic policies to protect soils and improvetheir management, so that they are betterable to deliver a wider range of ecosystemservices, including producing food, alleviatingflooding, and cycling nutrients.

—The Habitats Directive and UKlegislation for biodiversity: in particular,developing traditional approaches, based on designating ‘hot-spots’, into a whole-landscape approach, with more emphasis on creating habitat networks and restoringbiodiversity.

—Land-use planning policy: in particular,broadening policies that now protectagricultural land essentially for itsprovisioning role (e.g. the basis for identifyingthe ‘Best and Most Versatile’ land) intopolicies that in future recognise the value of safeguarding the much wider range ofecosystem services that rural land provides,alongside food production; and embeddingthe ecosystems services approach within the development planning and control framework.

Relu Briefing Paper 13 December 20104


How can we achieve joined-up policy?

One illustration of the critical need for muchcloser integration of different strands of policyis provided by the debate on human health andthe environment. Interdisciplinary researchhelps to break down the silos of policymakingand enable a more holistic view.

Several Relu projects provide examples of thebenefits of taking this kind of cross-sectoralapproach to policy decisions and their impacts:

— Reduced demand for dairy products andmeat, driven by concerns about diet andhealth, would cause a significant decline indairying, particularly in the south east andwest midlands, with dairy cows replaced bygrass-fed beef or sheep on fertile lowlandpastures. Upland livestock production wouldbe less viable, leading either to ranching orland abandonment, with serious implicationsfor valuable wildlife habitats on upland farms.Fruit and vegetable growing would increase,particularly in the traditional areas of thesouth and east, often through thewidespread and intensive use of polytunnels.

— People are being encouraged to eat morefish, but this could threaten some wild stockswhich are in decline. Fish farming provides analternative but faces criticism for pollution,poor welfare standards, and using wild fish asa source of fishmeal for the farmed fish.Small-scale inland aquaculture systems couldoffer a sustainable solution to the need forfish protein in human diets, provided thesesystems are properly integrated with otherlocal food chains, and use low-carbon energy sources. This would also offer avaluable business opportunity for farmersand other rural people.

— Withdrawing harmful pesticides fromthe market protects human andenvironmental health, but can present achallenge for the effective control of farmpests and diseases. This is an opportunity todevelop biopesticides, which are naturallyoccurring substances, microorganisms, and‘signal’ chemicals produced by plants that allhelp to control pests. This demonstrates that‘high-tech’ can also be ‘green’, and that weshould use all the technology at our disposalto promote environmental benefits.

— Pathogenic microorganisms in livestockwaste may pose significant risks to publichealth if they contaminate coastal bathingwaters, food or drinking water. Farmers maynot appreciate that their management oflivestock waste or slurry on land upstream,several miles away from main rivers and thecoast, could have such impacts. Policies forenvironmentally sustainable livestockmanagement should take account of thispublic health dimension.

— Improving public awareness of health risks in the natural environment could usefullyencourage greater personal responsibility.For example, targeted information on therisks of infection with E. coli and tick-borneLyme disease, and how these risks can beminimised would help people to enjoy thecountryside more safely, without causingundue anxiety.

How can we protect and enhanceEngland’s natural assets?

We now have a key opportunity to review the fullrange of policy mechanisms to protect andenhance England’s assets, and to createcoherent frameworks better adapted tochanging needs and circumstances. Agrienvironment schemes could still have a key roleto play and CAP reform provides a goldenopportunity to refine their design, tacklingcurrent weaknesses and looking ahead to future challenges.

There are nine main policy mechanisms that havebeen used to differing extents to protect andenhance natural assets over the past 20 years, butthere have been criticisms about a lack ofcoherence in their design and delivery:

— Providing information, advice and training:e.g. the Code of Good Agricultural Practice,nutrient management plans, and theCatchment Sensitive Farming Programme.

— Promoting voluntary action:e.g. theVoluntary Initiative for Pesticides, and the industry’s Campaign for the Farmed Environment.

— Offering incentives:e.g. annual managementpayments and capital grants underthe Environmental Stewardship agri-environment schemes.

— Levies, charges, and taxes:e.g. levies on farmproduce to contribute towards marketing andresearch work, and charges for abstractionlicences.

— Investing in infrastructure:e.g. by the waterindustry (drinking water, sewerage), theGovernment (managing flood risk), anddevelopers (sustainable urban drainage).

— Regulating land management throughstatutory designations and rules: e.g. NitrateVulnerable Zones, Sites of Special ScientificInterest and CAP cross-compliance.

— Regulating built development through landuse planning: e.g. at various spatial levels.

— Purchasing or leasing property rights in theuse and management of land: e.g. easementsor covenants under which farmers acceptrestrictions on how they manage land in returnfor payment.

— Purchasing land outright: to enable directcontrol of its use and management, instead ofseeking to work through existing owners andmanagers of land.

We have an opportunity to improve coherence ofpolicy mechanisms at both UK and EU levelswithin a new, integrated policy frameworkdesigned to adapt to changing needs andcircumstances.

Relu projects have examined how several policymechanisms currently operate, and how theymight be improved. Relu Briefing Papers on theWater Framework Directive (Briefing Paper 11),and the Common Agricultural Policy (BriefingPaper 12), and many of the Relu Policy andPractice Notes (see Annex) provide evidence tosupport the development of policies for land,water and biodiversity and also, importantly, todevelop delivery tools and approaches. Reluprojects offer particularly useful insights into agri-environment schemes, which are relevant toother land management polices too, includingforestry.

From small-scale beginnings in the 1980s, agri-environment schemes have developed over thelast 25 years as a largely effective way ofbroadening the focus of rural land managementto include protecting and enhancing England’snatural assets, alongside the continuedproduction of food. Drawing on Relu findings, keyrecommendations for the next stage of agri-environment policy and delivery in England are:

— Increased, secure funding: agri-environment schemes should be retained as a key mechanism for deliveringenvironmental policy within the CAP. A radical increase in funding is required tofulfil their role in delivering environmentalpolicy commitments and ecosystem

services. They should be allocated a higherproportion of the CAP budget and besupported at a higher rate of EU co-financing.Payments to farmers should be increased as necessary to ensure that desiredenvironmental public goods will continue tobe delivered following any reductions in theSingle Farm Payment. Payment calculationsshould reflect the real costs of deliveringpublic goods, both on highly productive land and in situations where farming isunprofitable but environmentally beneficial.

— Ecosystem services approach:agri-environment schemes should be explicitlydesigned and implemented within theframework of an ecosystem services approachto the delivery of environmental public goods.This will assist in managing the varieddemands on land, setting priorities, andidentifying and tackling conflicts. It will alsoprompt consideration of the role of theschemes in rewarding services not hithertosupported, such as taking action to reduceflood risk (e.g. to reduce run-off and hencepeak flows, or to store floodwater to protectareas downstream).

— Land management at the right scale: themenu of land management options, in anyone area, should be based on a systematicassessment of all the environmental publicgoods which could be provided by farms inthat area. Management prescriptions shouldbe tailored, as far as possible, to localconditions, and uptake targeted at the mostappropriate scale (e.g. ‘catchment’ for waterquality, or ‘landscape’ for farmland birds).

— Involving stakeholders in schemedesign and delivery:advice from localfarmers and other stakeholders on schemeoptions, delivery, and how to co-ordinateaction between farmers can be of great value.Their advice should have a more prominentrole in the process of designing, delivering andreviewing agri-environment schemes. Moreuse should be made of tools to supportdeliberation on objectives and priorities, andto help resolve conflicts. ParticipatoryGeographical Information Systems offer one useful approach to this.

Tackling the erosion of our natural value



— Promoting collaborative approaches:The scale at which scheme agreements areplanned, negotiated, funded and deliveredshould shift, over time, from the individualfarm to the local community of farms. Keyconsiderations in making this shift include:

— Rewarding farmers fairly for the additionalbenefits and costs of collaborative actionand ensuring that farmers outsideagreements cannot negate the work of those within them.

— Building on experience and precedents from the other parts of the UK and elsewhere in Europe, wherecollaborative agri-environmentagreements have been successful (e.g. improving the environmentalmanagement of common grazing land).

— Improving cost-effectiveness andlandscape scale benefits for wildlife by co-ordinating agri-environmentmanagement spatially across several farms.

— Improving water quality by co-ordinatingagri-environment management on farmsacross the catchment.

— Securing long-term delivery ofenvironmental public goods:agri-environment schemes should incorporate, orbe supplemented by, new contractualmechanisms to secure land management thatdelivers environmental public goods overperiods of decades rather than years. This willbe particularly important in managing carbon,and in restoring, re-creating or linking wildlifehabitats. Other countries offer valuableexperience, from which the UK can learn,about using mechanisms such as purchasingeasements or land.

— Addressing strategic challenges: agri-environment schemes should have thecapacity to address the challenges of climatechange, demographic changes, biodiversityloss and water quality, for example by:

— Promoting carbon storage through landmanagement that prevents the loss of soilcarbon, especially in the uplands, andincreases the rate at which carbon is takenup from the atmosphere. It will beimportant to ensure that the benefits ofthis are not offset by increased emissionsof other greenhouse gases.

— Encouraging integrated pestmanagement by creating habitats toharbour predators which will eat pests(biocontrol), adopting complementarynutrient and soil management practices,and supporting these with newtechnologies such as biopesticides. Thiswill also help to ensure that chemicalpesticides are used only when they arereally needed.

— Improving water quality by extending tolowland farms the current agri-environment option for erectingstreamside fencing to reduce faecalcontamination of water by livestock. This will reduce public health risks ofpathogens in drinking and bathing water, and in shellfish.

— Responding to threats, for example byrestoring landscape features damaged bydiseases and pests, and avoiding thecreation of habitats favoured by ticks.

— Reviewing support for conversion toorganic systems in areas of highly-productive farmland. An alternative, more environmentally effective use of agri-environment support might be to createnetworks of land managed primarily forbiodiversity around intensively managedfields on conventional farms. The benefitscould be enhanced by using ‘no-till’ or ‘low-input’ management.

— Providing formal agri-environmenttraining, targeted on novel or technically-difficult options, as an integral part of allschemes, to improve their overallenvironmental effectiveness. This will helpfarmers to understand scheme objectives,and support them in exercising their landmanagement skills.

— Sharing experience of paymentcalculations with other Member States,with the aim of establishing consistentpractices which provide appropriate rewards for the provision of environmentalpublic goods.

— Moving towards payment by results willrequire the development of cost-effectivetechnologies to monitor the provision ofecosystem services. In the meantime, agri-environment schemes could specify desiredoutcomes rather than prescribing inputs (e.g.‘a sward of a certain composition and height’rather than ‘the timing and density ofgrazing’). Farmers would become moreinvolved in delivering quality environmentalgoods, and able to check and adjustmanagement practices themselves.

Are there novel mechanisms we could employ?

There are novel policy mechanisms that could be employed for securing long-termmanagement of land for environmentalpurposes, including those that have been usedsuccessfully in other countries. New researchhas an important part to play.

In managing land for the delivery of ecosystemservices and environmental public goods, agri-environment schemes will continue to have apivotal role but Relu projects have shown thatthere could be a place for other, more novelmechanisms too. For example, water suppliers inthe UK, and elsewhere, have purchased water-gathering grounds to protect them frompollution. This approach could be extended to thepurchase of groundwater catchments.Alternatively, water companies are seeking toprotect water resources by working directly withland managers, and more than a hundredcatchment management schemes andinvestigations are testing this approach. Theresults could inform efforts to move away from‘end-of-pipe’, energy-intensive, engineeredsolutions to providing high quality drinking water.

Mechanisms more commonly used in otherparts of the world include the public purchase oflong-term easements or covenants restrictingland use, or sale-and-leaseback arrangements.Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) arevoluntary transactions between land managersand individuals or groups which benefit from theservices provided. A new Relu project willevaluate the Westcountry Rivers Trust’s WATERproject, which aims to develop a market-basedcatchment restoration scheme. Anotherapproach, used in England by the NationalForest, is a tendering process for land managersto specify what services they will provide, atwhat cost, over what period, and then bidcompetitively for a share of the funds. Theremay also be opportunities to raise funds for landmanagement from consumers (as visitors andtourists) and through local community andcharity initiatives.

There is scope to build on recent beneficialchanges in regulation of biopesticides, making iteasier and cheaper to get them to market, and to improve the control of organisms harmful to plants.

Managed fisheries encourage angling, andimprove habitats, but can also bring risks ofdamage to sensitive lakes, escapes of non-native fish and the spread of disease. The risks ofenvironmental damage could be reduced, byimproving information and training for fisheryowners and managers, and for the anglersthemselves.

How can we reduce England’sfootprint on the naturalenvironment overseas?

We cannot concentrate exclusively on ourenvironmental footprint within the UK. We livein one world and cannot insulate ourselvesfrom global concerns. We must thereforecontinue to develop life-cycle analysistechniques and apply these when consideringwhether to import or produce goods at home,while recognising that policy decisions mustalso take account of economic and socialconsiderations. Freshness seems to be moreimportant to consumers than preciseprovenance, so more emphasis needs to beapplied to freshness rather than food being“local”. We need more accurate globaldatabases, to enable greater sophistication inlife-cycle analyses, and to promote greateropenness about the underlying assumptions.We also need to support developing countriesin taking steps themselves to reduce theirenvironmental footprint.

Relu research underlines the value of accurateand comprehensive life-cycle analysis in helpingto reduce our environmental footprint globally(both at home and abroad). But choicesbetween different options must take account ofall dimensions, not just environmental, buteconomic and social too. Although progress isbeing made in developing life-cycleassessments for natural resources, more work isneeded to improve the quality of the data used,their sophistication, and fairness in treating verydiverse production systems, for example by:

— Developing more precise and accuratedatabases of land use and emission factorsfor developing countries, and for differentagri-ecological zones.

— Establishing a single, easily accessible globaldatabase of all the data needed to determinecarbon footprints for farm products.

— Publishing all the assumptions behind carbonfootprints used in labelling schemes, so that itis clear which impacts have (and have not)been considered.

— Distinguishing between different phases ofthe life-cycle, including the user phase (e.g. toshow consumers that the relatively highfootprint of products such as coffee reflectscarbon usage in the home, rather than theactions of producers in developing countries).

These challenges have been illuminated by aRelu study of the relative carbon footprint ofvegetables consumed in the UK but grown (a) inUK glasshouses, (b) in Spain and driven here, or(c) in Africa and flown here. Perhaps surprisingly,the energy costs of growing a crop in heatedglasshouses in the UK may in fact exceed thoseof growing it in a field in Africa and flying it here.The overseas trade will bring importanteconomic and social development benefits tothe growers in Africa, and the food will also befresh (importantly, the research showed that‘freshness’ is what consumers particularly valueabout ‘local food’). This study suggests thatpolicy-makers need to think carefully about thewider implications of carbon-labelling beforeintroducing such approaches to guideconsumers. Without careful assessment, these could have serious, and often unfair,implications for developing countries whichexport food crops. While developing countriescould take practical steps to reduce their carbonfootprint, by increasing yields, and by carryingout more processing locally (so that goods could be transported by sea rather than by air),accounting methods also need to be refined (for example by including both the carbonsequestered under bush crops such as coffee,and the carbon embedded in machinery used in developed countries).


Tackling the erosion of our natural value


How can the “Big Society” play a greater role?

The UK Government could promote a “BigSociety” approach to enhancing our naturalvalue by supporting and mobilising volunteers,establishing new types of formal groups(community action groups, trusts and co-operatives), and developing awareness-raisingcampaigns to promote environmentalmessages. Relu research has demonstrated awide range of tools and approaches topromote shared understanding andcollaboration and new approaches forpartnership working, especially at a local level.

Rural communities are well-placed to leadlocalised policy-making and action, but needfocused help and support to do so. The RuralCoalition has recently provided some valuablerecommendations:

— ‘National and local government shouldrecognise and adopt community-ledplanning as ‘best practice’ as part of puttingin place the mechanisms to underpin the‘Big Society’.

— ‘To deliver the ‘Big Society’, localism andempowering communities, the Governmentneeds to start by building local capacity fordelivery - for example through support forlocal enablers and activists, advice andtraining, and modest funding opportunities.

— ‘Parish and Town Councils should becomethe ‘guardian’ of the community-led plan,monitoring progress and regularlyrefreshing the priorities in the light ofchanging circumstances.

— ‘Local Authorities should recognise thatthere will often be a very strong case forindividual communities obtaining visiblebenefits, community facilities andcommunity-led services from acceptingmore development in their area.’

(The Rural Coalition, 2010)

The Local Government Information Unit haspromoted four principles for local leadership onenvironmental projects: ‘setting a long termvision, promoting community engagement,attracting investment, and progressivepartnership’ (Lee, 2010). These can also be

adapted to apply to economic and socialconcerns.Many Relu projects, particularly thosefocused on managing land and water, havedrawn actively on the ideas, knowledge andexperience of local people. The projects havebuilt significantly on established approaches forengagement, going beyond ‘consultation’ or‘participation’ by emphasising ‘deliberation’,‘co-creation’, and ‘learn’ not ‘tell’.Recommendedgood practice for engagement, distilled fromRelu experience, includes: — Targeting specific local issues at an

appropriate scale (neighbourhood, parish,catchment, or landscape), and engagingpeople from the outset, when challenges arefirst being aired, not after the research,analysis and action plans have already been finalised.

— Bringing together the key players in the area(land managers, local interests and publicbodies) also involving any outsiders whocould help.

— Being clear about the specific objectives forinvolving people, and open to their differentperspectives, priorities and motivations.

— Combining, and encouraging respect for,different types of expertise (includingscientific data and models, and localknowledge and ideas).

— Using face-to-face meetings, field workshopsand discussions to develop trust and shareinformation; having independent skilledmediators or facilitators to lead, if necessary,to promote common understanding anddefuse any conflicts.

— Promoting an agreed understanding ofproblems, opportunities and constraints,informed by local inputs and usingGeographical Information Systems to aid discussion.

— Getting people to co-create and deliberateon current and potential future models andscenarios, and to develop innovativeproposals adapted to local conditions.

— Ensuring shared and open access to data tohelp everyone understand the issues, and tomeasure impacts and monitor success.

— Continuing with active engagement overtime, with regular reviews and adaptation totake account of new information, alwaysrecognising that it often takes substantialtime to build the trust and understandingneeded for successful collaborative working.

Engaging local stakeholder groups in tackling environmental issues is not alwaysstraightforward, particularly where there may be a history of conflict between the players.Examples of approaches used by Relu projectsto engage local people include:

— Competency groups to integrate scientificknowledge and local experience. By workingtogether to incorporate local knowledge offloods in a standard flood risk model, localpeople and scientists were able to explorescenarios, discuss costs and trade-offs,identify and deliberate on options for action,and deliver widely-owned solutions thatwere more likely to be implemented. Thelocal participants brought a wide range ofknowledge and expertise to the discussions,and the involvement of independentfacilitators was important in promotingconstructive dialogue.

— Community catchment management,where researchers explored a complexdiffuse pollution problem, affecting a lake,with local farmers, tourist businesses, andpublic bodies. A community group promotedsurveys of local practice, and the installationof a buoy on the lake to monitor waterquality. The feedback and data are helpinglocal people to take decisions which shoulddeliver a range of improvements.

Mobilising the time, energy and skills ofvolunteers could bring significant benefits inmanaging natural resources. For example,anglers, fishing clubs and fishery managers havea wealth of knowledge about particular waterbodies and an active interest in safeguardingwater quality and improving fisheries.Harnessing this potential requires both effectivecommunication with volunteers and support forthem, for example with training. There is scopeto expand the work of River Restoration Trusts,and of local initiatives such as RiverCare, whichactively engage local communities inmonitoring, managing and enhancing the waterenvironment, particularly in towns.

Building on and enhancing our natural value

More formal structures, such as communityaction groups, trusts and co-operatives, could be modelled on the environmental co-operatives in the Netherlands which bringtogether farmers and other local people toimplement large scale environmentalmanagement projects on farmland. A new Relu project will take this work further, studyingthe scope for collective contracts within agri-environment schemes.

In supporting community action it, is veryimportant to provide readily available and easy to understand information about theenvironment and the effects of landmanagement. Straightforward frameworks helpto make sense of complex interactions, andenable sensible choices to be made betweenoptions. The value of tools and approacheswhich help people work effectively togethertowards shared goals must not beunderestimated. Communication and decision-support tools which Relu projects havedeveloped and tested include:

— The ‘Ecosystem Health Report’ card, which is a map-based graphic and data table that‘scores’ water-quality parameters for eachmonitoring point within a catchment. Thecard facilitates discussion about actions to tackle diffuse pollution, and repeating the scoring periodically helps to monitoroutcomes.

— A ‘kite’ tool, used in the management of water pollution risks, is a graphic tool that maps four variables on a scale of 1-10 on its own axis (microbial burden, transferpotential, infrastructure, and obstacles to riskmanagement). The colour of the resultingpolygon shows the overall risk (red, amber,green), while the shape indicates priorities formitigating actions.

— Computer-based ParticipatoryGeographical Information Systems (PGIS)can create spatial models and simulations;integrate local knowledge with scientificresearch; provide an agreed basis for widerdiscussion; encourage the sharing ofincidental information, and help to evaluatethe impact of changes.

Several Relu projects have developed and usedscenarios to prompt new thinking amongdifferent interests. One project engaged local

people in developing two scenarios formanaging peatlands, for UK food security; or for carbon storage and wildlife. The scenariosprompted discussion about opportunities andthreats from climate change and future optionsfor sustainable actions.

Models can stimulate engagement, improveunderstanding, aid deliberation of options,inform targeting, and support policy decisions.Relu projects have used models in manydifferent contexts, including:

— Bringing together economic andhydrological models to consider the costsand benefits of different ways of reducingdiffuse pollution, and then examining theimpacts of changes in key drivers over time.

— Using data from a sample of different typesof upland farms to model how farm income,land use and biodiversity might change undersix policy scenarios.

— Modelling how key biodiversity indicators(weed and bird populations) respond tomanagement changes.

— Bringing together different tools, includingcost-benefit techniques, deliberativemethods, and qualitative and quantitativeanalyses, to create a ‘big picture’.

Awareness-raising campaigns can promotepositive environmental messages. Examplesfrom other countries include signs in the HudsonRiver catchment which remind visitors, everytime they cross a tributary stream or watershed,that any waste will end up in the iconic HudsonRiver estuary. Similarly, signs are used in theNetherlands to inform visitors that access totrails is just one of several local ecosystemservices, alongside water supply protection,biodiversity and flood risk alleviation.

What role can civil society play?

We have a once in a generation opportunity toshift thinking away from a short-term ‘winnertakes all’ approach to resource management,towards a holistic approach, whereby decisionsare based on the long view and driven by adesire to optimise the yield of ecosystemservices from any one area. We could moveaway from a focus on influencing themanagement of individual parcels of land,

without reference to the wider landscape,towards one where proposed actions areviewed in the context of local synergies andtrade-offs, and actions are planned andmanaged at the most appropriate scale for theecosystem services involved. This is a scenarioin which land management contracts would benegotiated with groups of land managers,rather than individuals, promotingcollaborative action to deliver benefits whichare greater than the sum of the parts. It wouldvalue and draw on the knowledge andexpertise of people who understand their localenvironment, discourage “silo” thinking withinthe public sector and adapt readily to newevidence and changing conditions.

This could be achieved by:

— Providing communities with officialenvironmental information, in accessibleformats, which enables them to ‘own’ localchallenges, to tackle them, and to monitorsuccess.

— Promoting civil society organisations ascollaborative partners for public bodies, on anequal footing, recognising their valuable rolesas providers of local information on theenvironment, and of skills and expertise, andas promoters of voluntary action.

— Providing support as necessary to build thecapacity and capabilities of civil societyorganisations so that they can play enduringroles in the new organisational structures.

— Providing better information for individualson how lifestyle choices impact on theirhealth and on natural resources (food, water,carbon, biodiversity).

— Working to establish a better sharedunderstanding of environmental challengesand, so far as possible, a shared view of theactions needed to tackle them, among landmanagers, rural and urban communities,businesses, and voluntary organisations, toprovide a firm basis for collaborative action inall our interests.




There would be a key role for local authorities inmanaging natural resources, building initially ontheir new responsibilities in relation to watermanagement.

The thrust of the ‘Big Society’ concept is to pushpower away from central government to localgovernment, and to drive it down even further,to communities, to neighbourhoods andindividuals. Adopting and applying the goodpractices developed by Relu projects will helpenablers, such as individual activists, communitygroups, local elected councillors and localauthorities, to take a lead in encouraging andsupporting local action.

Relu has examined the role of local authorities inmanaging water resources, but theopportunities could also apply to themanagement of biodiversity and other naturalresources. Local authorities could, at acatchment level, co-ordinate, plan and integratethe actions of all public sector players, voluntaryorganisations and businesses; they couldinfluence priorities and targets within their area,collect and publish data to support actions andmonitor success. They could lead and manageengagement with local people, provide trainingand networking opportunities, stimulate andsupport locally-led initiatives, and ‘join up’implementation among different interestswithin their areas, and with other authorities andstakeholders working in the same catchment.

Local authorities will face some challenges intaking on these roles. There may be a need tostrengthen capacity and capability, which will bedifficult at a time of financial restraint.Legislative changes may also be needed to givelocal authorities sufficient powers to take on alarger role in managing natural resources. Theymay also have to reposition their relationshipswith other public bodies. Nevertheless, localauthorities are well-placed to be instrumental inpromoting beneficial change, through theirability to provide a strong local focus forexchanging ideas and information, developingpartnerships, and encouraging collaboration.

How can we create a smarter,greener economy?

Integrated Rural Development Programmesupport for farm businesses to develop highquality, high value products, targeted onfarming systems that sustain valuable wildlifehabitats, would support a smarter, greenereconomy. Sustainable, suitably locatedrenewable energy crops and micro-generationsystems on farms could also provide widereconomic and environmental benefits.

Other European countries have a long history ofsupporting farming systems marketing very highquality food and other products, which are widelyassociated with vibrant forms of ruralregeneration. Providing similar support in the UKcould help kick-start and sustain a range ofbusinesses based on the sustainablemanagement of natural resources, bringing manyother benefits (e.g. sustaining rare livestockbreeds, local food chains, highly-valued wildlifehabitats, and traditional landscapes). One Reluproject looked at the niche market opportunitiesbeing exploited by a new generation of farmentrepreneurs, and by long-standing farmbusinesses. These focused on the production andmarketing of products such as ‘salt-marsh lamb’,using traditional farming systems based onunimproved pastures. The policy implications ofthis project may be of wider application in drivingsmarter, greener growth. Supportive policymeasures could include:

— Providing agri-environment and other RDPEsupport to promote such shifts in farmingsystems.

— Developing labelling systems based onproduct, place or process (like those in Franceand Italy) to encourage and support specificproducts such as salt-marsh lamb.

— Providing targeted support to set up producergroups and support collaborative production,processing and marketing.

— Aligning management options under agri-environment schemes with the requirementsof quality production schemes, for examplefor management of species-rich grasslands.

— Developing the links between sustainablefarming practices, landscape quality andproduct marketing (e.g. through the Grazing

Animals Project, Wildlife Trust projects, andother producer, food and community groupinitiatives, including projects focused ongame, such as venison).

In the energy sector, the introduction of energyfeed-in tariffs has provided a significant incentiveto micro-energy generation schemes. Similarmechanisms could be used to encourage thedevelopment and uptake of other newtechnologies. New green business opportunitiesfor farms will come from unmet potential in therenewable energy sector. Support for small-scaleanaerobic digestion schemes, often on farms, inAustria, Germany and Denmark has resulted inhigh levels of energy production and many otherbenefits for rural communities. Governmenttargets for generating electricity from biomasswill stimulate establishment of low-inputperennial biomass crops such as short-rotationcoppice willow and Miscanthus grass. It has beenestimated that there is sufficient land available forthese crops without encroaching on productivefarmland or sensitive wildlife habitats, and a Reluproject developed GIS tools to integrate theevidence for decision making, mapping landsuitability and appraising sustainability. Grantshelp with establishment costs, but land managersare not yet rewarded for the wider environmentalbenefits provided by these crops, and there maybe scope to reflect this within agri-environmentschemes.

How can we achieve joined-upthinking for land management?

We need more integrated thinking about theimplications of one course of action for otherpolicy objectives and better connectionsbetween public bodies, policy areas, regions,local authorities, generations and countries.

Relu research has focused on bringing differentdisciplines together to study what havetraditionally been conceived as single-issueproblems, and on engaging local people andcommunities. This has underlined the need formore integrated thinking about the implicationsof any one course of action for other policyobjectives. Policy-making and policy deliveryneeds to become much more ‘rounded’, ‘joined-up’, ‘networked’ and ‘holistic’ - but without falling into ‘paralysis by analysis’. The keyrequirement will be to make better connections,for example between:


— Government departments: betweenDefra and its agencies and the Departmentfor Communities and Local Government,given the critical role of the planning systemin protecting and enhancing the naturalenvironment.

— Policy areas: the links between theenvironment and the health of individuals,and the public as a whole, in an ageing andlargely sedentary population.

— Regions: the significant environmental andsocial inequalities between some parts ofEngland must be reflected and addressed inpolicy-making.

— Local authorities: protecting water qualityand water resources within catchments,safeguarding soil from mis-management,and restoring biodiversity through greeninfrastructure, corridors and networks, willrequire much greater collaboration betweenlocal authorities, because natural resourceunits are not defined by political boundaries.

—Generations: we must take the interests offuture generations into account in ourdecisions today, by building resilience intoecosystems so that they can continue todeliver a range of sustainable public goods,even under significantly changedenvironmental, social and economicconditions.

— Countries: there is scope to learn fromexperience overseas, not only in Europe, butalso from Australasia, North America andelsewhere, in managing natural resourceswithin modern democracies.

Current arrangements for managing the waterenvironment underline the need to developintegrated approaches. The many activities andfunctions which impact on water quality at acatchment scale include: spatial planning,highways, surface water, storm water, wastemanagement, domestic septic tanks, watersupply, sewerage, land drainage, agri-environment schemes, stream corridormanagement, plus monitoring and research. Yetthese fall under many different organisationswith diverse remits and responsibilities.Successful catchment management will requiregreat efforts to improve horizontal and verticalcoordination, and collaboration, between many

players. Local authorities, the EnvironmentAgency, the water companies and OFWAT alldevelop relevant appraisals and plans, but tendto run on asynchronous cycles, have differentpriorities, and share limited information. Thedevelopment of river basin management plansmay stimulate a more coherent approach,helped by new tools, such as Water CycleStudies, which deliberately take an integratedapproach in assessing the impacts of plannedgrowth on the water environment.

A Relu study of floodplain managementillustrates the benefits of a more integratedapproach to decision making. It showed that iffloodplains are used to store water at certaintimes of year, this can destroy the eggs or chicksof ground-nesting birds and set back farmlandbird conservation work. Equally, maintaininghigh water levels in the soil and in ditches canreduce flood-storage capacity and in turn affectthe extent to which flood managers can controlthe retention and release of water to avoidflooding downstream settlements. Taking aholistic approach illuminates such conflictsbetween environmental objectives and assistsin developing policy options to maximise thecombined output of ecosystem services.

How can we take a landscape-scale approach to landmanagement?

We need to find effective ways to co-ordinateland management actions at scales larger thana single farm, appropriate for delivering thepriority ecosystem services in that area and todevelop evidence-based policy mechanismswhich incentivise land managers to act as acommunity, rather than simply as individuals.

There is clearly a need to co-ordinate publicinvestment in land management if ecosystemservices are to be delivered effectively, as shownby evidence from Relu projects. One obstacle tocollaboration among land managers is that agri-environment schemes are usually deliveredthrough voluntary agreements with individuals,within legal frameworks which respect anduphold their private property rights andfreedom of choice. Improving collaboration willmean finding ways to incentivise farmers to actas a community, rather than as individuals.Simply designing new schemes and deliverymechanisms will not in itself be enough. Jointparticipation may often depend on convincing

farmers that the individual benefits will stronglyoutweigh the costs of collaboration, bothperceived and real. One Relu project showedthat landowners with hunting estates werereluctant to join schemes if this meantrelinquishing control over the management oftheir land. In contrast, another project foundthat farmers were willing to work together tosecure agri-environment agreements if theyconsidered that this would help to secure thecontinued viability of their individual farms.

In many parts of the EU collaboration is anintegral part of everyday agriculture, coveringco-operative purchasing of inputs, sharing ofmachinery, worker training, harvesting andstoring of produce, and marketing of crops andother products. If UK farmers already collaboratesuccessfully to maximise rewards from themarket, through farmers’ markets, and foodmarketing schemes, why should they not alsowork together to secure rewards from the CAPfor the provision of environmental public goods?

One option to encourage collaboration might beto reward farmers for voluntarily tackling localland management issues as a group, agreeingco-ordinated actions across several farms, anddelivering these through group agreements.Two Relu projects have promoted suchapproaches which could help to:

— Bring together farmers and, importantly,other stakeholders within a target areachosen at a scale (parish, catchment,landscape type) appropriate to the naturalresource focus (soil conservation, waterquality, farmland birds).

— Foster negotiations on changes in land useand management to deliver a range ofecosystem services at the chosen scale.

— Identify locations which could mostefficiently and sustainably provide different ecosystem services, usingcomputer models and secondary data (e.g.tools such as Participatory GeographicalInformation Systems).

— Encourage deliberation on scientificevidence, and critical knowledge from localland managers and others, with the aim ofdelivering locally appropriate solutions.



— Improve efficiency and effectiveness of publicfunding, by informing and validating the menuof ecosystem services to be rewarded in thearea, and advising on targeting.

— Reconfigure existing incentives, or createnew ones, to deliver the desired combinationof ecosystem services as cost-effectively as possible.

This approach could lead to the channelling offinancial support from public funds throughlocal groups, rather than through agreementswith individual farmers. There are parallels withthe approach adopted by community ‘land care’groups and programmes in other countries. Thisapproach could be applied to other resourcemanagement challenges which depend, for theirultimate success, on co-ordinated actionbeyond the farm scale.

How can we influence Europeand work internationally?

We have to draw on UK experience andresearch to develop evidence-basednegotiating positions on EU and internationalpolicies, particularly on CAP reform and theWater Framework Directive. We must ensurethat policy frameworks agreed at internationallevel can be effectively implemented in the UK,and adapted to changing circumstances.

EU law provides the framework for most UKpolicy and practice in relation to managementof natural resources, particularly the CommonAgricultural and Fisheries Policies, and the WaterFramework, Habitats, Birds and (proposed) SoilDirectives. The UK also plays a role in developinginternational policy, including conventions onBiodiversity and Climate Change, and on worldtrade negotiations.

Relu projects have contributed importantfindings to the current debate on CAP reform,recommending reform of and better targetingof agri environment schemes and encouragingfarmers to work together at landscape scale todeliver a wider range of ecosystem services (setout in Relu’s Briefing Paper 12), while BriefingPaper 11 emphasises the need to improveengagement, policies and governancearrangements to facilitate successfulimplementation of the Water FrameworkDirective in the UK.

A written charter for land use

A possible approach to address these issuescould be a written charter, re-framing therelationship between the public and privateinterest in land, setting out the rights,responsibilities and expectations of landmanagers and how these can be deliveredthrough a combination of the market,voluntary self-regulation and action, stateregulation, and actions supported by publicincentives. The charter would promotecollaborative action in both the private andpublic interest, enable important legislation tobe refreshed and consolidated, and encourageboth individual and collective innovation. The charter could similarly re-frame the rights,responsibilities and expectations of the publicsector and civil society.

The written Charter for Integrated NaturalResource Management would:

— Establish a new set of aspirations for, andexpectations of, the public sector, privatesector and civil society in relation to ournatural environment.

— Significantly shift thinking among manyplayers in many different sectors, creatingan enabling framework for individual andcollaborative action.

— Promote an integrated approach tomanaging England’s natural resources, sothat all the dimensions of policy options arefully considered before decisions are made.

— Set out the rights, responsibilities andexpectations of land managers and howthese can be delivered through acombination of the market, voluntary self-regulation and action, state regulation, andpublic incentives.

Relu Briefing PapersCopies may be downloaded from:www.relu.ac.uk/news/briefings.htm

1 Setting the research agenda2 Rural economy and land use futures3 The unfolding research agenda4 The UK rural economy and land use debates5 Power and responsibility - Who decides? You

decide!6 Common knowledge? An exploration of

knowledge transfer7 What is Relu? 8 Land to mouth: exploring the links between

sustainable land use and the food we eat9 Landmarks for policy10 Telling stories: Accounting for knowledge

exchange11 Water Framework: Implementing the Water

Framework Directive12 Informing the reform and implementation of

the Common Agricultural Policy

Relu Policy and Practice NotesCopies may be downloaded from:www.relu.ac.uk/news/policyandpracticenotes.htm

1 The role of regulation in developing biologicalalternatives to pesticides

2 Warm water fish production as adiversification strategy for arable farmers

3 Eating biodiversity: an investigation of thelinks between quality food production andbiodiversity protection

4 Safe recycling of livestock manures5 Stakeholder participation in the management

and communication of food chain risks6 Implications of a nutrition driven food policy

for the countryside7 Catchment management for the protection of

water resources: The ecosystem health reportcard

8 Regional rural land use: a time for fresh thinking9 Assessing the social, environmental and

economic impacts of increasing rural land useunder energy crops

10 Overcoming market and technical obstacles toalternative pest management in arablesystems

11 Comparative merits of consuming vegetablesproduced locally and overseas: Fair andevidence-based carbon labelling

12 Social and environmental inequalities in ruralareas

13 The sustainability of hill farming

14 Sustainable uplands: reshaping land use policy for our hills

15 Integrated management of floodplains16 Policy-making for animal and plant

disease: a changing landscape?17 Sustainable uplands: learning to

manage future change 18 Collaborative frameworks in land

management: a case study on integrated deer management

19 Bovine tuberculosis: a problem for farmers,conservationists and policymakers

20 The changing role of local government inmanaging water resources

21 Angling in the rural environment22 Models, decision-making and flood-

risk: doing simulation modelling differently

23 Is wildlife conservation compatible with arable farming? Evaluating the options for sustainable agriculture

Relu Consultants’ ReportsCopies may be downloaded from: www.relu.ac.uk/news/ConsultantsReports.htm

Woods, A. (2009). Securing integrated landmanagement for the UK.

Swales, V. (2009). The lie of the land: Future challenges for rural land use policy in Scotland.

Annex


Cameron, D. (2010). Transcript of a speech by thePrime Minister on the Big Society, 19 July 2010.

CREDIT (2010) Carbon Reduction andInvestment Technique seehttp://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/credit/

Franks, J.R., and McGloin, A., (2007) Jointsubmissions, Output Related Payments andEnvironmental Cooperatives: Can the DutchExperience Innovate UK Agri-environmentPolicy? Journal of Environmental Planning andManagement 50 (2): 233-256.

Gabriel, D., Sait, S. M., Hodgson, J. A., Schmutz, U.,Kunin, W. E., and Benton, T. G. (2010) Scalematters: the impact of organic farming onbiodiversity at different spatial scales. EcologyLetters. 13: 858–869.

Lee, J. (2010). Natural leaders: actions for localenvironmental leadership. Report produced bythe Local Government Information Unit (LGiU)for Natural England.

OFWAT (2009). Future water and sewerage charges 2010-15: Finaldeterminations. Birmingham.

Rural Coalition. (2010). The rural challenge.Achieving sustainable rural communities forthe 21st century. Published on behalf of theRural Coalition by the Town and CountryPlanning Association.

Ryedale Flood Research Group. (2008). Makingspace for people: involving local knowledge inflood risk research and management inRyedale, Yorkshire. (See http://knowledge-controversies.ouce.ox.ac.uk/news/Making_Space_for_People.pdf)

Waterton, C., Norton L., and Morris, J. (2006).Understanding Loweswater: interdisciplinaryresearch in practice. Journal of AgriculturalEconomics 57(2): 277-293.

The Rural Economy and Land Use Programme isa £25 million interdisciplinary researchprogramme, funded by the UK research councilswith additional support from Defra and theScottish Government. It runs from 2003 to2011 to investigate the strategic challengesfacing the UK countryside.

Based on a response written by Alan Woods,Clunie Keenleyside and Anne Liddon to theGovernment White Paper consultation “AnInvitation to Shape the Nature of England”

Rural Economy and Land Use ProgrammeBriefing Series No 13 Shaping the Nature ofEngland: policy pointers from the ReluProgramme December 2010


References

16 Relu Briefing Paper 13 December 2010

Rural Economy and Land Use ProgrammeCentre for Rural EconomySchool of Agriculture, Food and Rural DevelopmentNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneNE1 7RU

Telephone: 0191 222 6903Email: [email protected]

shaping the nature of england: policy pointers from … the nature of england: policy pointers from...

Documents