Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
Thursday 10th September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:59
09:59
09:59
09:59
09:59
09:59
09:59
09:59
09:59
10:00
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Of whom we may hear a little. The organisation of which we may hear a little more later. Well, look, let me give you a free hit to start. We are here in Cumbria. We're at the county show. This is a big part of your local farming calendar. If you can just briefly give me a thumbnail of how important you see farming to a community like this and the summit.
Just a few of the threats and opportunities that there are from that. And I'll just start with yourself.
Just a few of the threats and opportunities that there are from that. And I'll just start with yourself.
10:00
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Cumbria is a rural agricultural county. We are actually the second largest producer of both red meat and milk of all the counties in England, which will surprise a lot of people to produce nearly 1,000,000,000l of milk and the fulcrum of society and communities in Cumbria is probably based around farming in the Lake District. And we mustn't forget the Pennines as well, further into the east. But much of our society revolves around the value and benefit that farming delivers to our county, both in terms of food production, in terms of local community and what the farming industry actually delivers to our local rural economy.
And it cannot be stressed how important that is in the role that farming, farming plays in this county.
And it cannot be stressed how important that is in the role that farming, farming plays in this county.
10:01
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you. Well, I would endorse what Adam has said and perhaps add from the Foundation for Common Land, where a national charity. And so I'm interested in uplands across England. And there are just to remind people that the places people go on holiday are generally the uplands, whether they're going to Dartmoor, whether they're going to the Quantocks, whether they're going to the Yorkshire Dales, the North York Moors and of course, Cumbria. And there are those landscapes which make up about 24.
If we look across all protected landscapes, make up 24% of England. Common land is at the heart of those landscapes, and common land is managed by 3900 commoners. And I remember saying to a member of Parliament when he was visiting Cumbria, I said, it's rather like commons. You need to have commoners managing, they need to be lived work, landscapes. It's rather like saying we continue to have cathedrals but have no cathedral choirs. You would have no soul to the land.
They need to be inspired and run by people on the land. I should add the Foundation for Common Land is not a membership organisation. We are an independent charity. We have no members and we are there to deliver public benefit on the natural and cultural heritage of common land and the system of commoning.
If we look across all protected landscapes, make up 24% of England. Common land is at the heart of those landscapes, and common land is managed by 3900 commoners. And I remember saying to a member of Parliament when he was visiting Cumbria, I said, it's rather like commons. You need to have commoners managing, they need to be lived work, landscapes. It's rather like saying we continue to have cathedrals but have no cathedral choirs. You would have no soul to the land.
They need to be inspired and run by people on the land. I should add the Foundation for Common Land is not a membership organisation. We are an independent charity. We have no members and we are there to deliver public benefit on the natural and cultural heritage of common land and the system of commoning.
10:02
10:02
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I totally agree what my two colleagues have said. You know, basically Cumbria, the landscape, why it's like it is, is because of the way it's been managed and farmed and it attracts a lot of tourism to our area, which is another great source of income that we rely on heavily within the agricultural industry to help us go forward, and we just need to promote what we actually do here as hill farmers.
10:03
10:03
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
A lot of the pressures that are on the farm business at the moment are, you know, the income streams as such, you know, the restrictions on what you can actually do. You know, everybody seems to want to just make us take livestock off the hills and plant trees, etc.. Within the valleys, you know, the taking sheep off the hills. There's less people actually working there. The hefting system is an actual system whereby the sheep create their own boundaries.
There's no fences on them hilltops, and you take the heft off. That's next to you. Basically, our sheep move into that house, so you've got twice as much area to cover to gather them. And the the manpower isn't there to do it.
There's no fences on them hilltops, and you take the heft off. That's next to you. Basically, our sheep move into that house, so you've got twice as much area to cover to gather them. And the the manpower isn't there to do it.
10:04
10:04
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Basically, people are offered money to take sheep off the hills, and at times it maybe looks easier to do that. It's an easier income, you know, sort of . You never know until the back end sales, how much your livestock is going to make. Whereas if somebody comes and says to you, we'll offer you this much money to go into that scheme, you actually your cash flow is quite a lot easier. You know how much you're going.
To
To
10:19
10:19
10:19
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I support organisation, we've spent the last 4 or 5 years holding many meetings for farmers to try and introduce the scheme to them and to build confidence. Embracing change is always difficult, especially when you've been in an industry that has worked the same way for so many years and through government policy, and we must not forget this. So government policy has been led down a path of produce, produce, produce. I went to agricultural college in the 80s.
It was all about buying as much fruit on as you can. Get rid of those hedges, plow your lands. Come on, we need to produce food. What we're seeing now isn't going to take place in the space of a of a seven year transfer process. This is generational change. So we're having these meetings for 4 or 5 years to build confidence, to build knowledge, for farmers to say it's going to be different. But the actual principles of environmental land management are absolutely, really good cleaner air, cleaner water, better soil.
What's not to like about that? But with what we've had in the last 3 or 4 years, the stop start mechanism, the changes, the one pricing structure, then it was higher than some some of the offers were taken away. What's it actually has done is destroy that confidence. Take us a long way back back on where we were. So I think most farmers that I know would say that the principles are very, very good, but they would also make the point that we actually want to farm as well.
And a lot of them feel that they're being tunnel led towards environmental land management. But they're saying very clearly, we're still production farmers. We're actually proud to produce food, and we think you're going to need us a lot more in the future as far as food production goes, for various reasons. So we want to do that in balance. But in principle, Elm is is on the right lines. But my goodness, it's been very, very challenging for the first 4 or 5 years.
It was all about buying as much fruit on as you can. Get rid of those hedges, plow your lands. Come on, we need to produce food. What we're seeing now isn't going to take place in the space of a of a seven year transfer process. This is generational change. So we're having these meetings for 4 or 5 years to build confidence, to build knowledge, for farmers to say it's going to be different. But the actual principles of environmental land management are absolutely, really good cleaner air, cleaner water, better soil.
What's not to like about that? But with what we've had in the last 3 or 4 years, the stop start mechanism, the changes, the one pricing structure, then it was higher than some some of the offers were taken away. What's it actually has done is destroy that confidence. Take us a long way back back on where we were. So I think most farmers that I know would say that the principles are very, very good, but they would also make the point that we actually want to farm as well.
And a lot of them feel that they're being tunnel led towards environmental land management. But they're saying very clearly, we're still production farmers. We're actually proud to produce food, and we think you're going to need us a lot more in the future as far as food production goes, for various reasons. So we want to do that in balance. But in principle, Elm is is on the right lines. But my goodness, it's been very, very challenging for the first 4 or 5 years.
10:21
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think around the stop start. And it's interesting. So a lot of people, as you say, are currently under higher level stewardship. And we've got this sort of transition. I understand why the Rural Payments Agency wants to switch off Genesis. So there are these this computer system is called Genesis that runs environmental stewardship. They wish to switch that off by December 2028. One of the things is this stop start.
So the only thing you could layer on top. So if you think about it, you take a bit of moorland. Generally it was £63 from Bhps on moorland and it was about £64 from from HLS. So that was about say £130. You're getting that 63 from Bhps is gone, and the only way you could top up was by a scheme called SFI more one where you did a survey, and government brought this in very successfully.
The Foundation for Common Land had a test and trial funded by Defra, and we produced an app and farmers could get an extra £17 per hectare on Commons. And we now run that service across the country. And we have 190 000 hectares of common land or sorry, of moorland that uses that. And they're collecting data. We have farmers and land managers collecting data. They're doing peatland surveys, they're collecting information and they're getting to understand the public benefits they are being asked to deliver.
And then they suddenly a decision was made this year to just pull that option because they said it doesn't directly deliver public benefits, but it's not all about the direct delivery. As Adam says, we're asking farmers to change the way they're approaching their job of looking after the land. And if we suddenly take away something that was a putting money into their pocket and B, they were going out, taking photographs, understanding what sphagnum moss was, understanding what the vegetation is, then we've sort of we're destroying their confidence in their role in terms of land management.
And it's a huge shame that that's that's gone. And and also because these photographs now with AI, we're quite excited. We've got three years of photographs for 194,000 hectares, and we're hoping to feed those in and then use farmers as a way of, you know, citizen science of collecting ecological assessments, because another problem in the nation is we don't have enough ecologists. So in order to go into CS higher tier, you have to do something called a par two survey.
So that's a planning application and you get a grant for it. But you have to get three quotes. You can't get the grant. There aren't enough ecologists to quote for it. And there's a huge delay. So the stop start is hugely problematic. The other thing with SFI is it has come in, but it's the they're not the moorland options aren't really suitable. I would suggest. It's quite hard if you're in in terms of farming, in combining that with farming and also it's not available on common land.
So it's absolutely there's, you know, as things stand.
So the only thing you could layer on top. So if you think about it, you take a bit of moorland. Generally it was £63 from Bhps on moorland and it was about £64 from from HLS. So that was about say £130. You're getting that 63 from Bhps is gone, and the only way you could top up was by a scheme called SFI more one where you did a survey, and government brought this in very successfully.
The Foundation for Common Land had a test and trial funded by Defra, and we produced an app and farmers could get an extra £17 per hectare on Commons. And we now run that service across the country. And we have 190 000 hectares of common land or sorry, of moorland that uses that. And they're collecting data. We have farmers and land managers collecting data. They're doing peatland surveys, they're collecting information and they're getting to understand the public benefits they are being asked to deliver.
And then they suddenly a decision was made this year to just pull that option because they said it doesn't directly deliver public benefits, but it's not all about the direct delivery. As Adam says, we're asking farmers to change the way they're approaching their job of looking after the land. And if we suddenly take away something that was a putting money into their pocket and B, they were going out, taking photographs, understanding what sphagnum moss was, understanding what the vegetation is, then we've sort of we're destroying their confidence in their role in terms of land management.
And it's a huge shame that that's that's gone. And and also because these photographs now with AI, we're quite excited. We've got three years of photographs for 194,000 hectares, and we're hoping to feed those in and then use farmers as a way of, you know, citizen science of collecting ecological assessments, because another problem in the nation is we don't have enough ecologists. So in order to go into CS higher tier, you have to do something called a par two survey.
So that's a planning application and you get a grant for it. But you have to get three quotes. You can't get the grant. There aren't enough ecologists to quote for it. And there's a huge delay. So the stop start is hugely problematic. The other thing with SFI is it has come in, but it's the they're not the moorland options aren't really suitable. I would suggest. It's quite hard if you're in in terms of farming, in combining that with farming and also it's not available on common land.
So it's absolutely there's, you know, as things stand.
10:24
10:24
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
mean, we're really hopeful that this RPA team who, you know, hats off to the, the team within the RPA have, once they've tried it on CS higher tier because that uses Abaco agri. So it used to be called City Agri and it's now rebranded. And that system, we hope, is the same for SFI and CSI. If we can get it to work on one, then I'm I I'm maybe Birmingham will be my favorite place to go in the country now, and I can go and meet the team and, and encourage them to, to expand their service.
So it's, it's about working with people, isn't it? This is a collective endeavor. And that's what we really want to say is that we're we all want to make this work, don't we? We nobody wishes to be in an adversarial position. It's a partnership between those who manage the land within the the Defra staff, within environmental NGOs, and with the public at large. Who are the taxpayers who are funding this?
So it's, it's about working with people, isn't it? This is a collective endeavor. And that's what we really want to say is that we're we all want to make this work, don't we? We nobody wishes to be in an adversarial position. It's a partnership between those who manage the land within the the Defra staff, within environmental NGOs, and with the public at large. Who are the taxpayers who are funding this?
10:25
10:25
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
At home? Basically, the schemes we were in got a rollover, so we haven't had to move into any other schemes. But just something I would sort of add is really from experience, what you tend to find is they come and have a look at your land and they find something magnificent, like an orchid, and they decide, right, let's fence that off. The reason the orchid was there, because it was suited to the way it was being managed.
And I think everybody has to be mindful of that, that it's how it is because of the way it's previously managed, you know, and has been for generations. So just don't go in , bulldoze and make a mess unless you create a total imbalance.
And I think everybody has to be mindful of that, that it's how it is because of the way it's previously managed, you know, and has been for generations. So just don't go in , bulldoze and make a mess unless you create a total imbalance.
10:25
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
No, I think you're right with that sort of thing. I think there is a danger that to try and achieve good things with the environment. Unfortunately, we end up pitting the farmers and against it because the system there, there's a desperation they need to try and make the money and they need to operate as a business, but also respecting the heritage that we have. It's a I mean, so if there was if there was 1 or 2 things we could do right now, if we if we had the government in front of us to say, would it be what would be your one sort of takeaway that you'd say, right, do this and this will make this much easier.
10:26
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
A universal offer so that all farmers not having the stop start, this is what we used to have. You know, we under HLS and you applied monthly. People weren't in a panic. It wasn't like buying a Taylor Swift concert ticket, which is what it literally it feels like that. Yeah. And what we need is to have, particularly the, the people we work with that, you know, work with their they're very busy.
They're running businesses on a fine margin. They're under a lot of stress, and they don't have the capacity necessarily to be there on the 22nd of September. And panic that by the 28th of September there's no money left in the pot.
They're running businesses on a fine margin. They're under a lot of stress, and they don't have the capacity necessarily to be there on the 22nd of September. And panic that by the 28th of September there's no money left in the pot.
10:26
10:26
10:26
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
To say for me, if I were sat in front of government, they ask, and this goes back to you chair talking about are you being heard SFI and how that feeds into nature recovery. There is frustration. I hear from many farmers that they'd actually like to work more closely with Natural England officers. They'd actually like to have officers on the ground on the farm. They'd like to show them the good bits of farm that they're proud of, that where there's biodiversity, where there's where there's good things happening.
But that isn't happening to any great extent. But also the I've talked to many farmers who would like to have that nature knowledge from organisations, conservation organisations per se, to help them learn those greater skills. And there's a frustration that that's not happening. So when we talk about nature recovery, very often, as Lisa just said, there's a focus on one thing and that leads to frustration, especially if you're on a really hard hill farm whereby you need your hay fields to make your winter crop, but you're being advised you need to plant trees on there or turn them back to nature.
Or there may be a hay meadow scheme, but you can't cut your hay until the middle of August. So the point is this we need proper co-design. A lot of schemes. It says co-design. This is co-design. Working with farms. Very often it isn't. It's farmers being told these are your options. Pick pick your pick your most favourite option.
Genuine co-design will recognise farmers saying this is what I've got for nature. That's good on my farm. But hey, I am a farmer and I'm here to produce food and I want to farm this land and I need to farm this land. And somewhere that co-design, it's a bit of give and take on both sides, but we have to find that sweet spot. And we're not finding that in many cases at the minute.
It's
But that isn't happening to any great extent. But also the I've talked to many farmers who would like to have that nature knowledge from organisations, conservation organisations per se, to help them learn those greater skills. And there's a frustration that that's not happening. So when we talk about nature recovery, very often, as Lisa just said, there's a focus on one thing and that leads to frustration, especially if you're on a really hard hill farm whereby you need your hay fields to make your winter crop, but you're being advised you need to plant trees on there or turn them back to nature.
Or there may be a hay meadow scheme, but you can't cut your hay until the middle of August. So the point is this we need proper co-design. A lot of schemes. It says co-design. This is co-design. Working with farms. Very often it isn't. It's farmers being told these are your options. Pick pick your pick your most favourite option.
Genuine co-design will recognise farmers saying this is what I've got for nature. That's good on my farm. But hey, I am a farmer and I'm here to produce food and I want to farm this land and I need to farm this land. And somewhere that co-design, it's a bit of give and take on both sides, but we have to find that sweet spot. And we're not finding that in many cases at the minute.
It's
10:28
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
about people on the ground. If of those 2800 members of staff, we could have. If we say 53% of represses are in the uplands, if we were to say that we were going to have, you know, a significant number of staff, and for that, there are some excellent natural England people locally in Cumbria, in other areas. You know, this is not about the individual staff. We're saying collectively, as a department, the Department for environment, Food and Rural Affairs and their executive agencies and arm's length bodies, can they say, well, actually, we could deliver so much more by putting people in the right place? And I mean, we run training courses on the 24th of September.
I've got 12 Natural England members of staff coming that we're going to, you know, be training them with a farmer, and there'll be two farmers there, and there'll be teaching them how to draft sheep, how to dose them, how to do some dry stone walling and understand about the economics. But they're coming often from quite a low base level. I mean, one member of staff, we had an accountant giving a talk about farm economics in this training course, and the member of Natural England quite innocently said, why does a farmer need an accountant? So we're starting at a low baseline.
There's no such thing as a silly question, but actually where we would love to work, have more natural England staff and I know Natural England staff would like to be able to spend more time than that. I had a member of Natural England staff say to me, when she goes on a farm and does a visit, she then has to fill in three different computer systems, report back on that farm, visit on three different portals. Now, is that the best use of precious civil servant time? Yeah.
I've got 12 Natural England members of staff coming that we're going to, you know, be training them with a farmer, and there'll be two farmers there, and there'll be teaching them how to draft sheep, how to dose them, how to do some dry stone walling and understand about the economics. But they're coming often from quite a low base level. I mean, one member of staff, we had an accountant giving a talk about farm economics in this training course, and the member of Natural England quite innocently said, why does a farmer need an accountant? So we're starting at a low baseline.
There's no such thing as a silly question, but actually where we would love to work, have more natural England staff and I know Natural England staff would like to be able to spend more time than that. I had a member of Natural England staff say to me, when she goes on a farm and does a visit, she then has to fill in three different computer systems, report back on that farm, visit on three different portals. Now, is that the best use of precious civil servant time? Yeah.
10:30
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
No, I know, I think we'll come back to Natural England slightly shortly, but as you said, every farmer knows their farm incredibly well, and we need to have that greater integration just quickly during the summer, when across in South Northamptonshire where I am, there was a worry about all the fires that were coming, and a lot of farmers were saying they wanted to actually cut down some of the wildfires, but they'd be penalised if they did. But yet they had the fuel, they're being left.
So it was that very it's that balance and it's a real strain for them.
So it was that very it's that balance and it's a real strain for them.
10:31
10:31
10:31
10:31
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
We've had the farming roadmap which has looked until 2030. The focus is on improving the application process, providing the stability, doing I think, as you said, stop it. Making making it like a Taylor Swift concert and providing more stability from 2030 onwards, there's an ambition to move towards a model where government pays for public good, that being more of an emphasis in the Elm schemes as a as a whole. I wonder if we could just sort of focus on this term public good and think as we when we're thinking about designing future schemes, what should we be considering in terms of what makes up those those words and what should be included in them that isn't currently now? Yeah.
10:31
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
It's a very strict economic use. I mean, I trained as an environmental economist and you know, the way if something's paid for at the till, it's then not considered a public good. So that that's where we've sort of got a bit trapped into, into that. And I think we could definitely be broader. But also, you know, let's we don't, you know, we can say in nature, we know. And the Joint Intelligence Committee has said that nature and biodiversity is absolutely at the heart of future national security.
So this is a matter of what is in our national interest. It is in our national interest that most people wish to eat three times a day. It's in our national and therefore providing food is really essential. We need to have a stable landscape. We need to have enough water. We need to have climate resilience and and nature. And our biodiversity is at the heart of that. I think there's a matter of what do we include in that.
But there's also the quantum. And what I've noticed over the last 30 years of being, you know, working as a land agent is that the the quantum is about the same. It's about we've had this magic £2 billion figure, and that is now worth perhaps less than half, isn't it, of of what it was. And I think there's a group of environmental NGOs. Yes. Only yesterday wrote to the government and said, I think they need at least an extra £2 billion a year at sort of 30, an extra £30 billion, isn't it? So I think, yes, let's broaden it.
And I suppose what you're trying to get at is, is whether food is a public good . And should we be expanding? I think probably that's a leading question. I shouldn't be asking the questions, but.
So this is a matter of what is in our national interest. It is in our national interest that most people wish to eat three times a day. It's in our national and therefore providing food is really essential. We need to have a stable landscape. We need to have enough water. We need to have climate resilience and and nature. And our biodiversity is at the heart of that. I think there's a matter of what do we include in that.
But there's also the quantum. And what I've noticed over the last 30 years of being, you know, working as a land agent is that the the quantum is about the same. It's about we've had this magic £2 billion figure, and that is now worth perhaps less than half, isn't it, of of what it was. And I think there's a group of environmental NGOs. Yes. Only yesterday wrote to the government and said, I think they need at least an extra £2 billion a year at sort of 30, an extra £30 billion, isn't it? So I think, yes, let's broaden it.
And I suppose what you're trying to get at is, is whether food is a public good . And should we be expanding? I think probably that's a leading question. I shouldn't be asking the questions, but.
10:33
10:33
10:33
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. It is that, you know, and it's it's about producing the right foods in the right place, isn't it? And it's making sure that we have a balanced land production system and we have a land use framework. I'm also a commissioner of the Food Farming Countryside Commission, really a land use framework. But as Adam says, it's not either or. It's both. And we can produce lots of nature in a farmed setting with a resilient landscape that ensures communities are healthy, thriving and protected from climate change.
10:34
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I sensitive to the local environment. So, you know, to go back to Adam's point, we're not wanting people to go back to piling as much fertiliser on the ground as possible. You're not looking to have pedigree, Charlie, or Limousin herds in in upland moorland, but there are breeds that are sensitive and are appropriate for for areas like yours which are good, then ultimately for nature recovery. Sorry, Henry. No,
10:34
10:34
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think the road map was welcome. I think that the farming community probably hoped for far more than it actually delivered. It's sort of centers on a direction, but that direction has been to a series of tunnels that aren't lit, and there's not enough in there now, which would allow any forward thinking farmers and farm business to say, where am I going to be in ten years? And farmers don't business plan for next year necessarily, or the year after.
It's a much longer term commitment, especially if we want our our land to be managed correctly. So it's it's given us a direction of travel. But my goodness, we need a heck of a lot more information. And we must not get away from the fact that nearly every farmer I know in this agricultural county wants to produce food, wants to farm livestock, and is proud to do that, and believes that they are delivering a very essential public good.
And I've heard people say, well, yeah, but you heal, you heal stock. You know, there's not that much of it goes for Prime. But we're right here now in Cumbria at the time of year when we're having our big autumn sheep sales. And here this week, next week and the next month, there are farmers from Cornwall to Caithness who are coming to Cumbria to buy replacement stock that has been bred from our sheep and our our hill suckler suckler cows, a tradition that has gone on for generations.
And the stratified sheep industry is the backbone of farming. And it's so, so important. And whilst we struggle and we want to embrace farming and enhanced nature in our environments, it shouldn't be a crime. Farmers should not be castigated for wanting to be farming and food producers. So what we just need is clarity in the future and a set of guidelines which farmers will be comfortable. And we haven't used the most important word, which is trust.
And there's not a lot of trust out there at the minute. So yeah, a road map was welcomed, but we need a heck of a lot more clarity in future.
It's a much longer term commitment, especially if we want our our land to be managed correctly. So it's it's given us a direction of travel. But my goodness, we need a heck of a lot more information. And we must not get away from the fact that nearly every farmer I know in this agricultural county wants to produce food, wants to farm livestock, and is proud to do that, and believes that they are delivering a very essential public good.
And I've heard people say, well, yeah, but you heal, you heal stock. You know, there's not that much of it goes for Prime. But we're right here now in Cumbria at the time of year when we're having our big autumn sheep sales. And here this week, next week and the next month, there are farmers from Cornwall to Caithness who are coming to Cumbria to buy replacement stock that has been bred from our sheep and our our hill suckler suckler cows, a tradition that has gone on for generations.
And the stratified sheep industry is the backbone of farming. And it's so, so important. And whilst we struggle and we want to embrace farming and enhanced nature in our environments, it shouldn't be a crime. Farmers should not be castigated for wanting to be farming and food producers. So what we just need is clarity in the future and a set of guidelines which farmers will be comfortable. And we haven't used the most important word, which is trust.
And there's not a lot of trust out there at the minute. So yeah, a road map was welcomed, but we need a heck of a lot more clarity in future.
10:37
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I would totally agree with what Adam said. And, you know, as a farmer, as such, we're a hill farmer. We can't change anything really , what we do because of the way our landscape is, you know, we tend to produce, as Adam says, we produce breeding stock rather than prime stock to go down country. And that's what we actually do.
10:37
10:37
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Yeah. You know, my partner's been busy for the last fortnight doing what they call a mule gimmer, which is a Swaledale cross, Leicester that goes on for future breeding, doing them up, ready for the sales, you know. And it's a case of everybody will judge you when you go with them. You know, there's so much pride in taking things to livestock markets and what the end product actually is.
10:37
10:38
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
It's a public good. Yeah. You know, going back to the, you know, the cathedrals, this is an intangible cultural heritage. We are, you know, within the where you're here, Lake District World Heritage site, and that is recognised by Unesco. Nobody's going to say, you know, Westminster Abbey doesn't have value. You know, what we're talking about is that we're talking about a landscape which has enormous value and has been recognised as such.
So the very system Lisa uses, and as, do you know, 3900 commoners across England is part of our cultural heritage. And we lose it at our risk, at our peril. I mean, one of the big concerns for me with the roadmap, and I'm afraid I'm really like Adam, really pleased to to see it published. But there were two concerns. Firstly, it was a little bit warm words and cold comfort because actually, how does it help you day to day? But secondly, there was a sort of hint there that the that we're looking towards as a nation, that corporations will be able to fund the delivery of public goods.
Now, the clue is in the name public money for public goods. Why would a private corporation wish to finance a public goods. Because they can't capture it for their shareholder benefit. And I would suggest that in the same way we you know, we're really proud in this country of our National health Service, of our public education system, of our libraries. And we don't expect private companies to fund those.
So the very system Lisa uses, and as, do you know, 3900 commoners across England is part of our cultural heritage. And we lose it at our risk, at our peril. I mean, one of the big concerns for me with the roadmap, and I'm afraid I'm really like Adam, really pleased to to see it published. But there were two concerns. Firstly, it was a little bit warm words and cold comfort because actually, how does it help you day to day? But secondly, there was a sort of hint there that the that we're looking towards as a nation, that corporations will be able to fund the delivery of public goods.
Now, the clue is in the name public money for public goods. Why would a private corporation wish to finance a public goods. Because they can't capture it for their shareholder benefit. And I would suggest that in the same way we you know, we're really proud in this country of our National health Service, of our public education system, of our libraries. And we don't expect private companies to fund those.
10:39
10:39
10:39
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
No not really. You need longer time to actually see that change and deliver that change. And an example of people sort of like. So a lot of years ago, they brought in the ESA scheme and a lot of farmers around here delved into that. Now, historically, what you actually did to farm was, you know, your sheep were in the meadows. So basically they took what the classed as the first cut, and then they would spread them traditionally with 2010 fertiliser, because that's what you did.
Naturally. England came, looked at their meadows, saw all the flowers that they wanted, all the grasses that they wanted. Ten years later, after the scheme ended, they went and revisited the site. All that had gone. That is what I sort of mean about, you know, the can create change that doesn't do the there because it's how it's been done.
Naturally. England came, looked at their meadows, saw all the flowers that they wanted, all the grasses that they wanted. Ten years later, after the scheme ended, they went and revisited the site. All that had gone. That is what I sort of mean about, you know, the can create change that doesn't do the there because it's how it's been done.
10:40
10:40
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I absolutely believe that's the case and the outcomes of the schemes as they are now. I question whether due diligence has actually taken place. And I have, in other forums, managed to talk to people at a high level in different. It was clear to me that that those outcomes weren't under consideration. So we're talking about this trade of sheep and cattle, which we have right now at this time of year, as we lose more and more sheep from the hills for various reasons, predominantly through the schemes.
What effect is that having on the local economy and the community? So behind every farmer, you can count 40 other businesses that support that farm businesses to a greater or lesser extent of the money that farmers like Lisa will reinvest in their business when they've sold their lambs this autumn. Probably 80% of that money they reinvest will be spent within 20 miles of the farm. That is the ethos, the essence of the local circular rural economy.
And I don't think the due diligence is being done to to work out what is the effect. If we take 50% of the sheep off that fell, or 25% off that fell, and they're no longer or in some cases, entire flocks, what what is the knock on effect of that on community, on the economy? And I don't think that due diligence is being undertaken. We're focusing entirely on the outcomes for nature and hopefully possibly a little bit on the farm business.
But the wider what's happening more widely to communities. I mean, if you go on to a website like Rightmove at the minute, there are valleys in this county now where you will see 4 or 5 farmhouses on the market now 800, 900, £1 million. The land is being taken back in hand by the estates. It has been planted with trees or rewilded or rewet. It's in schemes. The house is on the market.
There are numerous examples of this taking place right now. Is that an acceptable outcome of an environmental scheme or a tree planting scheme? I don't think it's being taken into account enough. And the effect that it's having on the , particularly the local community, some of who classed themselves as the indigenous people.
What effect is that having on the local economy and the community? So behind every farmer, you can count 40 other businesses that support that farm businesses to a greater or lesser extent of the money that farmers like Lisa will reinvest in their business when they've sold their lambs this autumn. Probably 80% of that money they reinvest will be spent within 20 miles of the farm. That is the ethos, the essence of the local circular rural economy.
And I don't think the due diligence is being done to to work out what is the effect. If we take 50% of the sheep off that fell, or 25% off that fell, and they're no longer or in some cases, entire flocks, what what is the knock on effect of that on community, on the economy? And I don't think that due diligence is being undertaken. We're focusing entirely on the outcomes for nature and hopefully possibly a little bit on the farm business.
But the wider what's happening more widely to communities. I mean, if you go on to a website like Rightmove at the minute, there are valleys in this county now where you will see 4 or 5 farmhouses on the market now 800, 900, £1 million. The land is being taken back in hand by the estates. It has been planted with trees or rewilded or rewet. It's in schemes. The house is on the market.
There are numerous examples of this taking place right now. Is that an acceptable outcome of an environmental scheme or a tree planting scheme? I don't think it's being taken into account enough. And the effect that it's having on the , particularly the local community, some of who classed themselves as the indigenous people.
10:43
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
It's trust that it's also power. I mean, we're we we often Cumbria is not as futile as some upland counties, but there are a lot of the uplands are very, very feudal and remain so. And power can be used by many people in different ways. There are some brilliant landowners and then there are other landowners, whether corporate or private, who are using the opportunity that has been provided through public money for public benefits, to say that they don't require tenants any more in order to extract a rent from the government.
You know, there was an article recently in the Guardian, The Business of Rewilding by Patrick Barkham and Nagtegaal Boothby, where investors have bought an arable farm for £13.8 million and have, you know, there's no longer being farmed. But it is a business. I mean, I know it's not the uplands, but we are finding similar things within the uplands, where Boutique Land Agency advisers will tell you how to maximise your return from purchasing, which is different from, you know, there are some, you know, there's a range.
I mean, clearly we have an open free market, thank goodness for property. But at the same time, it's where is the incentive from government leading potentially to unintended consequences, perhaps. Henry, could I just go back to the period about time? It's really important that agreements are long enough to deliver change. So three years is very short. I know the idea was to help tenants, but it's I think there are other ways to do that. The other thing is that the new CS in the uplands, a lot of them will be ten year agreements, but I don't know whether the committee is aware that there's a six month break clause.
So the government is a unilateral one way break clause. So the government at any time can give six months notice. You've committed to plant wood pasture to change your whole system, to maybe buy a herd of cattle, you know, to have native breeds there. And suddenly, you know, in two and a half years time, you could find your served notice. And that's that under the landscape recovery scheme. And we have some good new landscape recovery schemes coming forward.
It's not universal, but there are some good examples. But I think the the government has now or, you know, they've they've increased the break clause. It was one year and it's now at two years. But still they were talking about some landscape scale change. And farmers the length of certainty they have is two years. It's really hard to plan your business. And farmers have said to me on one comment in the south of the county, they've done an amazing scheme.
It's around Coniston and that common and a 4000 hectares, they put in 600 hectares of wood pasture a few years ago, and they said they would have done more if they'd had a 20 or 25 year scheme, because they knew they could commit for a generation. What you don't want is after ten years having trees that are half grown, what do you do with the fences? Where's the income coming from? So collectively, it's what you were saying about co-creation, isn't it, Adam, that if we can have that co-creation, we can collectively deliver more at better value?
You know, there was an article recently in the Guardian, The Business of Rewilding by Patrick Barkham and Nagtegaal Boothby, where investors have bought an arable farm for £13.8 million and have, you know, there's no longer being farmed. But it is a business. I mean, I know it's not the uplands, but we are finding similar things within the uplands, where Boutique Land Agency advisers will tell you how to maximise your return from purchasing, which is different from, you know, there are some, you know, there's a range.
I mean, clearly we have an open free market, thank goodness for property. But at the same time, it's where is the incentive from government leading potentially to unintended consequences, perhaps. Henry, could I just go back to the period about time? It's really important that agreements are long enough to deliver change. So three years is very short. I know the idea was to help tenants, but it's I think there are other ways to do that. The other thing is that the new CS in the uplands, a lot of them will be ten year agreements, but I don't know whether the committee is aware that there's a six month break clause.
So the government is a unilateral one way break clause. So the government at any time can give six months notice. You've committed to plant wood pasture to change your whole system, to maybe buy a herd of cattle, you know, to have native breeds there. And suddenly, you know, in two and a half years time, you could find your served notice. And that's that under the landscape recovery scheme. And we have some good new landscape recovery schemes coming forward.
It's not universal, but there are some good examples. But I think the the government has now or, you know, they've they've increased the break clause. It was one year and it's now at two years. But still they were talking about some landscape scale change. And farmers the length of certainty they have is two years. It's really hard to plan your business. And farmers have said to me on one comment in the south of the county, they've done an amazing scheme.
It's around Coniston and that common and a 4000 hectares, they put in 600 hectares of wood pasture a few years ago, and they said they would have done more if they'd had a 20 or 25 year scheme, because they knew they could commit for a generation. What you don't want is after ten years having trees that are half grown, what do you do with the fences? Where's the income coming from? So collectively, it's what you were saying about co-creation, isn't it, Adam, that if we can have that co-creation, we can collectively deliver more at better value?
10:46
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And leading on from Julia's point, if I if I may, chair, I'm having conversations with farmers in the Lake District right now who are being persuaded to go into schemes and commons agreements as well. But they're making the point that even even at ten years, and I think probably most would settle for ten, but even at ten years, because of the lack of the trust in the longevity of this situation, the farmers are saying to me, what happens in ten years time if I'm down to 25, 30, 40% of the sheep that I used to have, what happens if that public money runs out? Where do I go? I will not have a farming business in ten years.
My kids are small now, but I'd like to think they would have the opportunity in future what is going to be left for them? And so that trust in the longevity of these schemes isn't there. And that is a barrier.
My kids are small now, but I'd like to think they would have the opportunity in future what is going to be left for them? And so that trust in the longevity of these schemes isn't there. And that is a barrier.
10:47
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I'm really bad at keeping the committee to time, but we have a time pressures today because you need to be back judging, and I'm not going to get on the wrong side of the show committee. Henry, are you done with that? Charlie we're going to move on. I think we're going to get to the point where the rubber hits the road and the role of regulators and regulation. Yeah. Thank you chair.
I mean, Natural England has been mentioned a couple of times already, so perhaps worth just exploring that theme a little further. The Tenant Farmers Association have described them as anti farming. They were constantly mentioned in the responses to our calls for evidence. Perhaps, Adam, I'll start with you. In your experience, how transparent do you think the processes are by which Natural England make decisions on stocking rate sites, site conditions, etc.? Scheme access?
I mean, Natural England has been mentioned a couple of times already, so perhaps worth just exploring that theme a little further. The Tenant Farmers Association have described them as anti farming. They were constantly mentioned in the responses to our calls for evidence. Perhaps, Adam, I'll start with you. In your experience, how transparent do you think the processes are by which Natural England make decisions on stocking rate sites, site conditions, etc.? Scheme access?
10:48
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you. It's it's a really crucial point. This. And there is huge frustration amongst hill farmers, not just in Cumbria but further afield. We discussed co-design and farmers I think are really, really frustrated that that negotiation with Natural England isn't happening, that even in this part of the world, Natural England have produced a . Their idea of a set stocking rate of something like .05 livestock units per hectare or half a U per hectare or something like that.
And in some parts of Cumbria, in the most challenging areas of the Lake District, where laser farms, that might be right, but there are other areas of the Lake District, higher, drier fell areas where the farmers believe that land can carry far more stock, and they're not getting that message through, and that co-design doesn't seem to be there. And even there have been peer reviewed projects which have stated that no scientific evidence can be found to say that a stock, a set stocking rate will be universally effective.
That has been immediately was immediately challenged by Natural England. And where is the red line? Where does it stop? At what point does somebody somewhere say actually on this common or in this area, enough sheep have gone, there are no red lines and it's a huge concern to farmers and a very great frustration. Where does it stop? When are we happy that we've got rid of enough stock and we're doing enough for nature? And it's a real, real worry for many farmers that I know.
And in some parts of Cumbria, in the most challenging areas of the Lake District, where laser farms, that might be right, but there are other areas of the Lake District, higher, drier fell areas where the farmers believe that land can carry far more stock, and they're not getting that message through, and that co-design doesn't seem to be there. And even there have been peer reviewed projects which have stated that no scientific evidence can be found to say that a stock, a set stocking rate will be universally effective.
That has been immediately was immediately challenged by Natural England. And where is the red line? Where does it stop? At what point does somebody somewhere say actually on this common or in this area, enough sheep have gone, there are no red lines and it's a huge concern to farmers and a very great frustration. Where does it stop? When are we happy that we've got rid of enough stock and we're doing enough for nature? And it's a real, real worry for many farmers that I know.
10:50
10:50
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you. Well, I should declare that I was on the board of Natural England from 2014 to 2019. And I chaired their Uplands Committee. So just for the record, and I have a lot of time for a lot of people within Natural England. But as a what we're finding is that there's a sort of gap between what they're seeking to achieve and what's actually happening on the ground. Part of that is, as we've said earlier, about the staffing constraints among local teams around there, and there isn't enough time.
But I think partly it's a fact that how these schemes are constructed, it goes back to something Henry was saying. What is the breadth of public goods we're looking for? So if you are only looking for particular vegetation outcomes, you would inevitably go down that line. And, and the the document that Adam's referring to around the 0.05 livestock units per hectare, it's an average. It is true that if you're looking for agriculture for the ecological outcomes, you rarely get them at above 0.06.
We have. But what we're saying is that we're looking to to conserve and and sustain a system of farming, the cultural heritage, the natural heritage, and , and it's that lack of attention to the whole. And one of the reasons that Commons are so highly designated, seven times more designated for nature than enclosed land is because they have these multiple outcomes. And it means that you don't have one person who's only got a single agenda.
And we feel that's really important to maintain that. And so, and sometimes you can do things like Adam Bampton, comma, they want to have 500 hectares of planting so you can have a bit more intensive grazing here. And then you've got areas which are fenced off. So if Natural England had the staff on the ground , and we as a nation committed to supporting farmers to develop schemes that really work locally, I think Natural England staff would be really happy to have more people there.
I know that the we would as as a community, we would be very pleased to have that in my work as a in private practice, as a land agent. I mean, I've been doing some of these schemes, working these farmers for 30 years and. And yet the numbers have changes of staff that we're seeing the continuity. It's really hard for staff when they're changing regularly. We go to Dartmoor and I know this, you're in Cumbria, but if you don't mind me taking us to Dartmoor, where we've got 23 Commons agreements that are due to run out in the next year, you know, mostly in the next year, a lot of them in the next six months.
And it's natural. England don't have enough staff there. There is work through the Dartmoor Land Use Management group, but what we're finding is that our people, people are attending meetings, but are people actually collectively really working for a common good? And how do we, rather than people are feeling defensive? What we're seeing at the moment is farmers are feeling their identity as farmers is threatened, and ecologists have a strong and equal passion towards delivering for ecology.
And what we're seeing is that we're seeing a sort of diversion rather than a coming together.
But I think partly it's a fact that how these schemes are constructed, it goes back to something Henry was saying. What is the breadth of public goods we're looking for? So if you are only looking for particular vegetation outcomes, you would inevitably go down that line. And, and the the document that Adam's referring to around the 0.05 livestock units per hectare, it's an average. It is true that if you're looking for agriculture for the ecological outcomes, you rarely get them at above 0.06.
We have. But what we're saying is that we're looking to to conserve and and sustain a system of farming, the cultural heritage, the natural heritage, and , and it's that lack of attention to the whole. And one of the reasons that Commons are so highly designated, seven times more designated for nature than enclosed land is because they have these multiple outcomes. And it means that you don't have one person who's only got a single agenda.
And we feel that's really important to maintain that. And so, and sometimes you can do things like Adam Bampton, comma, they want to have 500 hectares of planting so you can have a bit more intensive grazing here. And then you've got areas which are fenced off. So if Natural England had the staff on the ground , and we as a nation committed to supporting farmers to develop schemes that really work locally, I think Natural England staff would be really happy to have more people there.
I know that the we would as as a community, we would be very pleased to have that in my work as a in private practice, as a land agent. I mean, I've been doing some of these schemes, working these farmers for 30 years and. And yet the numbers have changes of staff that we're seeing the continuity. It's really hard for staff when they're changing regularly. We go to Dartmoor and I know this, you're in Cumbria, but if you don't mind me taking us to Dartmoor, where we've got 23 Commons agreements that are due to run out in the next year, you know, mostly in the next year, a lot of them in the next six months.
And it's natural. England don't have enough staff there. There is work through the Dartmoor Land Use Management group, but what we're finding is that our people, people are attending meetings, but are people actually collectively really working for a common good? And how do we, rather than people are feeling defensive? What we're seeing at the moment is farmers are feeling their identity as farmers is threatened, and ecologists have a strong and equal passion towards delivering for ecology.
And what we're seeing is that we're seeing a sort of diversion rather than a coming together.
10:53
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And on that point, the staffing thing is very interesting because the the annual report shows they've got 427 senior management. That's a 15% of their entire workforce is senior management. They've got a chief executive gets paid more than the prime minister. You're saying they're completely under-resourced on the ground. That is shared by a number of people who've responded to this call for evidence. So either what we're saying here is natural England needs to get a grip on its structures, or would it be better off back in-house in Defra, where we'd have better political oversight?
10:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, I think it's also worth remembering that the head count of Defra has gone up 3.7 times since 2016, so I'm not sure that Defra. So in 2016 they had about 1600 core staff and they're now at over 7000. I've added together all the staff, Defra and all the Albs. There is one civil servant for every five farmers in this country now. So I don't think it really matters whether it's they sit within I mean, I'm personally in favor of a statutory conservation agency.
I'm in favor of Natural England being a separate, independent body because I think nature is really important. The Joint Intelligence Committee says it is. And I think having that independence is important. But at the same time, it's always about the how is as well as the what, isn't it? And what we're seeing is that we're not seeing delivery on the ground. It's not for me to tell Natural England how to organize their staff count. But all I can talk about is how what we're seeing in terms of how Commons are being managed and the risk to the future of common land to the most precious places.
You know, whether you're on the tours of Dartmoor, whether you're in the New Forest, whether you're in, you know, Ingleborough and the Yorkshire Three Peaks, where they're in the North York Moors. These are the places that lift the soul. You know, when you want to take a weekend break, these are the places you go. You're not going to go to the cauliflower fields of Lincolnshire, are you? You're you know, this is however, wonderful.
I love cauliflower cheese. It's my favourite food, I hate it. I love Lincolnshire for producing that. But it is really important that that there are well rewarded staff. The other thing is that actually the pay for Natural England staff at the lower end is shockingly poor. Yeah. So I think and I that has been the case for many, many years. And, and I know that from talking to staff, I've got, you know, lots of people who work for Natural England.
So we haven't got it quite right yet. And I think if we could actually ensure that there were lots of stuff, I'd give an example. When at home my mother farmed. It's now a charity. There's no sort of financial interest. But the first time we went into a stewardship scheme, we had the Natural England member of staff who spent the whole day on the farm. We gave him lunch.
He ate our homemade shepherd's pie with our own lamb. Great day. He gave us wonderful recommendations. We fenced off all sorts of rivers. Ten years later, Natural England came round and they didn't leave the kitchen. They didn't walk a single field. They said they didn't have the time, and they were giving us £21,000 a year to, you know, to the charity for doing more for nature. And not a single field was visited because they're under pressure.
But I think what more could have been done if they had the staff on the ground?
I'm in favor of Natural England being a separate, independent body because I think nature is really important. The Joint Intelligence Committee says it is. And I think having that independence is important. But at the same time, it's always about the how is as well as the what, isn't it? And what we're seeing is that we're not seeing delivery on the ground. It's not for me to tell Natural England how to organize their staff count. But all I can talk about is how what we're seeing in terms of how Commons are being managed and the risk to the future of common land to the most precious places.
You know, whether you're on the tours of Dartmoor, whether you're in the New Forest, whether you're in, you know, Ingleborough and the Yorkshire Three Peaks, where they're in the North York Moors. These are the places that lift the soul. You know, when you want to take a weekend break, these are the places you go. You're not going to go to the cauliflower fields of Lincolnshire, are you? You're you know, this is however, wonderful.
I love cauliflower cheese. It's my favourite food, I hate it. I love Lincolnshire for producing that. But it is really important that that there are well rewarded staff. The other thing is that actually the pay for Natural England staff at the lower end is shockingly poor. Yeah. So I think and I that has been the case for many, many years. And, and I know that from talking to staff, I've got, you know, lots of people who work for Natural England.
So we haven't got it quite right yet. And I think if we could actually ensure that there were lots of stuff, I'd give an example. When at home my mother farmed. It's now a charity. There's no sort of financial interest. But the first time we went into a stewardship scheme, we had the Natural England member of staff who spent the whole day on the farm. We gave him lunch.
He ate our homemade shepherd's pie with our own lamb. Great day. He gave us wonderful recommendations. We fenced off all sorts of rivers. Ten years later, Natural England came round and they didn't leave the kitchen. They didn't walk a single field. They said they didn't have the time, and they were giving us £21,000 a year to, you know, to the charity for doing more for nature. And not a single field was visited because they're under pressure.
But I think what more could have been done if they had the staff on the ground?
10:56
10:56
10:56
10:56
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
From experience? And when they come to do a site visit at the farm, I've got to say , they did spend the day outside looking at everything and did a tremendous report. Whereas Kentmere Day, coming when it came out of the scheme, had been in for ten years. We'd had to heavily reduce stock to get it in for that ten years. So it was up for renewal. We went back the wanted to half stock yet again.
They came. They looked at it. Their assessment of it was on the top of the fell. There'd been no regeneration of anything. It's 200 zero foot high. Sheep don't tend to graze up on the top of there, but they never come to the people that farm it and understand it and have a joint conversation, a joined up conversation as to what's actually going on. The basically give you a bit of paper, write these as a stocking numbers.
So what actually happened there was it hasn't gone back in. So any good that was possibly actually done will have been undone. But yet all the neighbouring farmers, what they've actually done is they're inside land, they've put into schemes and planted trees. So all them sheep that were in them, allotments, as we call them, are now back out on the fell.
They came. They looked at it. Their assessment of it was on the top of the fell. There'd been no regeneration of anything. It's 200 zero foot high. Sheep don't tend to graze up on the top of there, but they never come to the people that farm it and understand it and have a joint conversation, a joined up conversation as to what's actually going on. The basically give you a bit of paper, write these as a stocking numbers.
So what actually happened there was it hasn't gone back in. So any good that was possibly actually done will have been undone. But yet all the neighbouring farmers, what they've actually done is they're inside land, they've put into schemes and planted trees. So all them sheep that were in them, allotments, as we call them, are now back out on the fell.
10:57
10:57
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Well, I'm let me just bring it in. Just this one question. My experience across government is that the relationship between the regulated and the regulators works. When there is a relationship of trust and respect, do you feel you have that relationship with the regulators in particular, Natural England?
10:58
10:58
10:58
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Does vary. It varies a lot from place to place, and we have some really good schemes with some really good staff. And I think this is not what we want to do is to say that there are there is good practice, and what we would like is to have more good practice consistently across the country and and also enabling, you know, it is quite complex relationship. Who makes the rules, you know, between different natural England RPA, this is this is not about anybody getting it, anybody.
It's about collectively having a scheme that enables Natural England, the Rural Payments Agency and Defra, to do their job better.
It's about collectively having a scheme that enables Natural England, the Rural Payments Agency and Defra, to do their job better.
10:58
10:59
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you chair. Morning. I'm covering about 24% of land across the England protected sites. Protected landscapes status allows quite a lot of opportunities here in the Lake District. The National Park Authority has supported 302 funded projects, distributing approximately £5.9 million in grant funding. But obviously there are those additional restrictions as well. There was a friends of the Lake District, for example, said that designations have had a significant impact on decision making, land management and outcomes.
However, it's not always the positive impact that one would expect or desire. So to what extent do these designations affect the ability of farmers and landowners to operate viable businesses? At least? I wonder if I can come to you first.
However, it's not always the positive impact that one would expect or desire. So to what extent do these designations affect the ability of farmers and landowners to operate viable businesses? At least? I wonder if I can come to you first.
11:00
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Well, for instance, you know, when you have to reduce your stocking numbers on on the fell, if you haven't got as many and you haven't got as many lambs, you haven't got as much to sell. So it reduces your income as such. But yet because of the heaving imbalance, we've got twice as much area that we have to cover to do the same job, basically.
11:00
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, there's lots of forms of designations are probably worse. So there's the sites of special scientific interest. Only 8% of England is site of special scientific interest. And yet, you know, we have a huge proportion of Is in Cumbria and a huge proportion in the uplands. And common land, as I said, is highly designated. But what we it's about I think it's about million hectares isn't it, of England. So actually this could be an opportunity if we can get the schemes working well.
So I'd like to be cup half full about this. A designation can be a fantastic opportunity. And where the charity. I'm trustee of farms, we are not in a protected landscape. It's very beautiful. And Eden Valley we have no access to football. It's actually quite hard. So there are pluses and minuses for being in a protected landscape has been great, but it doesn't give revenue, so it pays. You know, people have done lots of hedging schemes.
They've done up their barns, they've done things. But it's not helping the farm business income. On a terms of regular basis. I I'm really in favour of designating areas for nature. I'm really in favour of protected landscapes. I think the Glover review was was fantastic. Some things have been implemented, more could be done. But we need to support people and we need to say this is a collective endeavour. We don't, you know, at the moment charge for anybody to come to our protected landscapes, but that means we need to invest sufficiently.
And we know that national parks are run pretty much on a shoestring and national landscapes as well. So my view is actually this is a really good source of source of well-being for the nation. If we think about the £2 billion going back to that figure, it's 0.2% of government expenditure. The government spends roughly, and you'll probably know more than I do 1.3 trillion a year, and that 2 billion is 0.2%. If we're saying this is part of our national security, if we're saying that producing and that's for all food, that's not just for the uplands, this is for 70% of England.
If we're saying that it is part of our national security to have healthy biodiversity, a resilient landscape and good quality food, to have a healthy public, then I would suggest that 0.2% is very The percent is very much on the low side.
So I'd like to be cup half full about this. A designation can be a fantastic opportunity. And where the charity. I'm trustee of farms, we are not in a protected landscape. It's very beautiful. And Eden Valley we have no access to football. It's actually quite hard. So there are pluses and minuses for being in a protected landscape has been great, but it doesn't give revenue, so it pays. You know, people have done lots of hedging schemes.
They've done up their barns, they've done things. But it's not helping the farm business income. On a terms of regular basis. I I'm really in favour of designating areas for nature. I'm really in favour of protected landscapes. I think the Glover review was was fantastic. Some things have been implemented, more could be done. But we need to support people and we need to say this is a collective endeavour. We don't, you know, at the moment charge for anybody to come to our protected landscapes, but that means we need to invest sufficiently.
And we know that national parks are run pretty much on a shoestring and national landscapes as well. So my view is actually this is a really good source of source of well-being for the nation. If we think about the £2 billion going back to that figure, it's 0.2% of government expenditure. The government spends roughly, and you'll probably know more than I do 1.3 trillion a year, and that 2 billion is 0.2%. If we're saying this is part of our national security, if we're saying that producing and that's for all food, that's not just for the uplands, this is for 70% of England.
If we're saying that it is part of our national security to have healthy biodiversity, a resilient landscape and good quality food, to have a healthy public, then I would suggest that 0.2% is very The percent is very much on the low side.
11:02
11:02
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
As a farmer support organization? We have close relationships with the national parks, the protected landscapes areas and certainly has been really good. It's been one of the successes, I think, for many of the farmers that I know, and it's proceeding now and hopefully another two years after this one as well. It's done some good for sure. We also have to remember that there are a lot of farmers that fall through the cracks, and if they're not in those protected landscapes, there's very little for them.
And we support various cluster groups of farmers who do fall through the cracks. But yeah, I think there is a willingness to work and to embrace it comes back to the same old thing. As long as there is recognition that farmers also want to farm that land as well, and they will have to be a little bit of give and take on both sides.
And we support various cluster groups of farmers who do fall through the cracks. But yeah, I think there is a willingness to work and to embrace it comes back to the same old thing. As long as there is recognition that farmers also want to farm that land as well, and they will have to be a little bit of give and take on both sides.
11:03
11:03
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, if we go back to the dower report, which was underpinned the National Parks Act. So this was John Deere produced report, and then there was the Hobhouse report. It was sort of rather broader. And I think perhaps there's been a bit of a shift and a bit of goalpost moving around. What are our national parks and national landscapes for? So it was very much about, you know, places for for the whole nation in terms of well-being.
We just had the World War Two, and they were landscapes of, of, of beauty. And I think that word beauty isn't perhaps used enough. Now underpinning that beauty is clearly our natural environment. And we know that. But the government, more governments over the last few years have very much sort of led 30 by 30 target on top of that 24%. And I would suggest that actually we can deliver 30 by 30.
So that's it's a to remind people that for 30% of the country to be managed for nature by 2030, I would suggest that should be a national target so that we can have farming with nature across the whole nation, not simply saying these are the pockets, it's not a sort of it's land sparing or land sharing, isn't it? And I think in a country such as England, where we're highly populated, our land sharing approach is more appropriate, particularly in such precious landscapes as are the Lake District, the Yorkshire Dales, where we're looking at that cultural heritage alongside things.
So I would perhaps like to go back to the roots of our national parks and national landscapes and the 49 act and saying, how do we have it's not either or, it's both and both nature and culture and food and recreation places for, you know, for us, for the, you know, 60, 70 million people in this country to be able to go and learn about farming, learn about our cultural heritage, enjoy squishing around in the sphagnum moss, really relish those orchids that are there.
And we do need to do much more to connect people with food, with nature, with place.
We just had the World War Two, and they were landscapes of, of, of beauty. And I think that word beauty isn't perhaps used enough. Now underpinning that beauty is clearly our natural environment. And we know that. But the government, more governments over the last few years have very much sort of led 30 by 30 target on top of that 24%. And I would suggest that actually we can deliver 30 by 30.
So that's it's a to remind people that for 30% of the country to be managed for nature by 2030, I would suggest that should be a national target so that we can have farming with nature across the whole nation, not simply saying these are the pockets, it's not a sort of it's land sparing or land sharing, isn't it? And I think in a country such as England, where we're highly populated, our land sharing approach is more appropriate, particularly in such precious landscapes as are the Lake District, the Yorkshire Dales, where we're looking at that cultural heritage alongside things.
So I would perhaps like to go back to the roots of our national parks and national landscapes and the 49 act and saying, how do we have it's not either or, it's both and both nature and culture and food and recreation places for, you know, for us, for the, you know, 60, 70 million people in this country to be able to go and learn about farming, learn about our cultural heritage, enjoy squishing around in the sphagnum moss, really relish those orchids that are there.
And we do need to do much more to connect people with food, with nature, with place.
11:06
11:06
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I was nodding totally in agreement, and I think it would be good to accept that the landscapes that you see around you here in Cumbria, and I hope you enjoy them. Us locals do. And 20 million visitors to this county do every year, making 40 million visits in in what is upwards of a £4 billion visitor economy predicated around the work predominantly that farmers and their livestock does. And and we're proud of that.
And I think as as a as a county, we should be proud of that. These are managed landscapes. Can they be managed better? Yes, of course they can. And our farmers are up for that challenge. But in an area like Cumbria, which is a large county but a relatively small area, is it the right area to start thinking about large landscape change, where we're actually looking to take a lot of livestock off those areas? Nobody knows because the data is not there.
The science hasn't been done. The the projects are being looked at now, but it's about achieving that balance. And we can't get away from the fact that we do need managed landscapes in this county.
And I think as as a as a county, we should be proud of that. These are managed landscapes. Can they be managed better? Yes, of course they can. And our farmers are up for that challenge. But in an area like Cumbria, which is a large county but a relatively small area, is it the right area to start thinking about large landscape change, where we're actually looking to take a lot of livestock off those areas? Nobody knows because the data is not there.
The science hasn't been done. The the projects are being looked at now, but it's about achieving that balance. And we can't get away from the fact that we do need managed landscapes in this county.
11:07
11:07
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
It's optimizing those numbers. There's quite a lot of work done is there's a whole system and commons called 11, where the number of. It's a sort of medieval term. And the idea was that the number of stock you had on the fell was the number you could hold at home in the winter. And, you know, as Adam said, we went through intensification with the post World War Two drive for increased production beyond probably the limits of some of the upland areas.
And we're now in a system where we farmers need support. What we need is someone from in the old days, it was someone from the AG was sitting in your kitchen and they were supporting you doing that. And that's what I'd love to be at. I'm delighted for Defra and its family to have so many staff, but let's get them on the farm rather than in the office.
And we're now in a system where we farmers need support. What we need is someone from in the old days, it was someone from the AG was sitting in your kitchen and they were supporting you doing that. And that's what I'd love to be at. I'm delighted for Defra and its family to have so many staff, but let's get them on the farm rather than in the office.
11:08
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Now, farmers are the proud custodians of some of the most beautiful parts of the country, whether it's up here in Cumbria or down in the Somerset Levels and Moors. But being in that protected landscape shouldn't mean choosing between nature and livelihoods. And I think that's been very much outlined already today. And so often farmers are left to absorb the cost of the public good. So if we're looking in terms of that balance of incentives and the constraints currently that are between supporting farm businesses, producing food or delivering environmental improvements, what can be done to improve that, that balance?
11:08
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
You need schemes that have as their targets delivering multiple outcomes. One of the challenges for Natural England staff, many of whom do appreciate the cultural heritage of these areas, is that what they're being asked to deliver is actually a nature only focus and nature is really important. Climate resilience is really important. I mean, we you know, we've just heard the Copernicus report, haven't we, how hot Britain has been. Absolutely. Climate resilience and addressing, you know, ensuring that we we address climate change.
You know, people here in Cumbria, they're they have huge opportunities in terms of doing that. But let's have cultural heritage going alongside that because at the moment, people just try and sneak it in and they go, you know, Natural England staff often do their best within a system that doesn't allow them and is not empowering them to pay for hefted flocks to pay for that, that system of intangible cultural heritage. Do you
You know, people here in Cumbria, they're they have huge opportunities in terms of doing that. But let's have cultural heritage going alongside that because at the moment, people just try and sneak it in and they go, you know, Natural England staff often do their best within a system that doesn't allow them and is not empowering them to pay for hefted flocks to pay for that, that system of intangible cultural heritage. Do you
11:09
11:09
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
think well, no, I think what we need is the right food being produced in the right place. You know, we are brilliant at producing red meat, as you know that that's our area. I think particularly grass fed. I'm personally an advocate for pasture for life at home where pasture for life certified. I think there is a you know, there are opportunities for having lower input systems that are more resilient to geopolitical shocks. So I think there how we produce good quality, nutrient dense food off the fells is something that we can support farmers do more of.
And the farmer network does brilliant work, don't you? In terms of peer to peer learning site visits, there are fantastic work that's been done among your members to support farmers. Look at the optimising efficiency of their agricultural production business, and we need to do a lot more of that. But really, is it up to Adam and his team of, you know, small team of part time people to be transforming the rural economy of Northumberland, Cumbria and Yorkshire? Or perhaps some of you know, these many thousands of people within the civil service could be seconded.
And I think they're going to be some people seconded from Defra to the Cumbria Combined Authority, which is very exciting to hear. So we're looking forward, looking forward to that. Do you think
And the farmer network does brilliant work, don't you? In terms of peer to peer learning site visits, there are fantastic work that's been done among your members to support farmers. Look at the optimising efficiency of their agricultural production business, and we need to do a lot more of that. But really, is it up to Adam and his team of, you know, small team of part time people to be transforming the rural economy of Northumberland, Cumbria and Yorkshire? Or perhaps some of you know, these many thousands of people within the civil service could be seconded.
And I think they're going to be some people seconded from Defra to the Cumbria Combined Authority, which is very exciting to hear. So we're looking forward, looking forward to that. Do you think
11:11
11:11
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
No, not at all at this moment in time. And I'd maybe go a little bit further than Julie has gone, as we've had many of these conversations over the years. But but whilst Julie is right, it's about the quality of food and how we do that in, in, I don't want to use the R word because it means different things to different people, but a regenerative way. But I absolutely believe that we do need intensive agriculture as well.
When you understand the true effects of climate change and how that's going to play out over 20 or 30 years across the globe. And when you understand that we've got a rising population with over 67 million now, 75 or 6 million by 2050, which has gone in the blink of an eye, when you understand those pressures that are going to come onto this country and others, you realise we are going to have to produce a lot more food and low input, low, low output systems, which are brilliant in the right environment.
Fantastic. But we are actually going to have to have farmers producing a lot more food quite intensively in other areas. If we want to feed ourselves in the future, food security needs to be on the agenda.
When you understand the true effects of climate change and how that's going to play out over 20 or 30 years across the globe. And when you understand that we've got a rising population with over 67 million now, 75 or 6 million by 2050, which has gone in the blink of an eye, when you understand those pressures that are going to come onto this country and others, you realise we are going to have to produce a lot more food and low input, low, low output systems, which are brilliant in the right environment.
Fantastic. But we are actually going to have to have farmers producing a lot more food quite intensively in other areas. If we want to feed ourselves in the future, food security needs to be on the agenda.
11:12
11:12
11:12
11:12
11:12
11:12
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Okay. For me, and one thing that has stuck out to me, Adam, is actually what you said early on about the farming roadmap, where I'm paraphrasing here, but your quote was roughly that we've got a roadmap that leads to a series of tunnels that aren't lit. And that is really stuck with me, because I think that one of the things that was in the farming roadmap and the land use framework to much fanfare from Defra was the idea that private finance can start plugging the gaps and also providing more and more support to the farming industry.
So I'm just interested, in your opinion, Adam, how mature and accessible are natural capital markets for upland farmers and land managers?
So I'm just interested, in your opinion, Adam, how mature and accessible are natural capital markets for upland farmers and land managers?
11:13
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I can't speak with any authority on that at all. What I can say is that as a farmer network, we always say to our farmers, our strapline is whatever your challenge, whatever your opportunity. And we would always say to farmers, look at the opportunities. You may or may not decide to go down that route, but you have to have knowledge of the opportunity. So in terms of that, that future green finance at the minute, I think a lot of farmers that I know are sort of skeptical as to where that will lead them, the tunnel that that will take them down, if you like, and what will be in it for them and what will and the longevity of that funding, how long will it last? And a lot of farmers I know are pretty skeptical about putting land into long term schemes like that.
30 years nutrient neutrality, long longer than that. So there's quite a lot of skepticism at the minute, and not a lot of trust in the system from many farmers that I know in this part of the world. But I would always say to farmers, make sure you understand it, use the knowledge, and if there's anything there which will be of benefit to you, your business or your family and future, then we can help you embrace that.
30 years nutrient neutrality, long longer than that. So there's quite a lot of skepticism at the minute, and not a lot of trust in the system from many farmers that I know in this part of the world. But I would always say to farmers, make sure you understand it, use the knowledge, and if there's anything there which will be of benefit to you, your business or your family and future, then we can help you embrace that.
11:14
11:14
11:14
11:14
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
From experience? What I possibly say is have a lot of them been sort of cherry picked as to where the focus in it as such, you know, that's how I would sort of say it. That's why I know nothing about it. Yeah. You know, like we even have neighbors that have gone into a scheme to improve water quality. Surely all our tributaries all fall into the same river, but we never got the opportunity.
Yeah,
Yeah,
11:15
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
it's a lot of states find it easier to access this. I think it would be fair to say I'm involved in a what I say, a really good landscape recovery scheme. I'm on interim board, the resilient Glenderamackin, and that's led by a Rivers Trust. And they were really confident about trying to get private finance. So for those you know, I'm sure you're all aware it's the sort of pinnacle of the Elm and 20 year schemes.
And the Defra was very encouraging people to they were hoping maybe it was going to be an 8020 split or 75 public, 25% private money. I think they've managed to get maybe 3%, 2 to 3% and of private money going in. And that's been really, really hard to get. So they might be getting over 20 years, say the budgets, 120 million, they might get 3 or 4 million. And it's and those are people who are working incredibly hard.
The Rivers Trust nationally have access to all sorts of things. For an individual farmer, it's very, very difficult. And I think it's it's not only the regulatory framework, but also is there a demand. So that will depend on accounting standards and often international accounting standards. So is there you know, if you're I don't know, a large corporation, I don't want to pick on any particular corporation. But if you're a large corporation, if you have to internalize those externalities.
So from the sort of economics speak. So when people, you know, if you're, I don't know, producing fast food or running a mining company or running an airline, you produce these externalities and then you have to effectively or buying in these credits, carbon credits or biodiversity net gain, and you go, but, but actually, if regulation isn't requiring you to do that, then why would you? And we know that globally, this is a global market as well. And there have been quite a lot of changes across the pond in terms of attitudes towards environmental requirements, and that you only need to have an announcement over in Washington, DC.
And the market changes dramatically in the UK in terms of people's expectations.
And the Defra was very encouraging people to they were hoping maybe it was going to be an 8020 split or 75 public, 25% private money. I think they've managed to get maybe 3%, 2 to 3% and of private money going in. And that's been really, really hard to get. So they might be getting over 20 years, say the budgets, 120 million, they might get 3 or 4 million. And it's and those are people who are working incredibly hard.
The Rivers Trust nationally have access to all sorts of things. For an individual farmer, it's very, very difficult. And I think it's it's not only the regulatory framework, but also is there a demand. So that will depend on accounting standards and often international accounting standards. So is there you know, if you're I don't know, a large corporation, I don't want to pick on any particular corporation. But if you're a large corporation, if you have to internalize those externalities.
So from the sort of economics speak. So when people, you know, if you're, I don't know, producing fast food or running a mining company or running an airline, you produce these externalities and then you have to effectively or buying in these credits, carbon credits or biodiversity net gain, and you go, but, but actually, if regulation isn't requiring you to do that, then why would you? And we know that globally, this is a global market as well. And there have been quite a lot of changes across the pond in terms of attitudes towards environmental requirements, and that you only need to have an announcement over in Washington, DC.
And the market changes dramatically in the UK in terms of people's expectations.
11:17
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
No. And Lisa, if I can go back to you, there's a question I'd like to put to you, because some of the written evidence that we've received over time has actually highlighted a concern, especially up here, of issues that will be drawn by private finance, which is actually taking land out of being accessible to people like yourselves. So we had evidence from friends of the Lake District, which, when I quote, said, a further tension relates to farmland in uplands and upland fringes being sold off by landowners for carbon credits.
We had the Lake District National Park Authority saying green finance is also increasing pressure on land values. We had the campaign to protect rural England again, saying that it was another risk. Is it something that you fear as well?
We had the Lake District National Park Authority saying green finance is also increasing pressure on land values. We had the campaign to protect rural England again, saying that it was another risk. Is it something that you fear as well?
11:18
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
A bit of when you actually travel and leave Cumbria? A lot of farmers don't necessarily do that very often. Why would you? Yeah. You know, you then appreciate what we actually have here. And as a farmer, I personally want to share that with people. You know, as long as the come and leave it how they found it and don't, you know, destroy it as such.
And that's a bit of the challenge of all these people coming. You know something, I'm going to talk technical terms, but when you take the sheep off the fells, etcetera, we've got loads of footpaths. Now when you go to gather the fells, etc., the easiest place to walk is on a sheep trod. If you go off the sheep trod, it's it's hard terrain and you know, these people want to come and walk. We want to share it with them.
We don't want it to be closed. You know, the majority of them do respect what we have here and look after it. And I think we should share it. You know, it's a bit nobody wants to see the last of anything do they. You know it's a balance.
And that's a bit of the challenge of all these people coming. You know something, I'm going to talk technical terms, but when you take the sheep off the fells, etcetera, we've got loads of footpaths. Now when you go to gather the fells, etc., the easiest place to walk is on a sheep trod. If you go off the sheep trod, it's it's hard terrain and you know, these people want to come and walk. We want to share it with them.
We don't want it to be closed. You know, the majority of them do respect what we have here and look after it. And I think we should share it. You know, it's a bit nobody wants to see the last of anything do they. You know it's a balance.
11:19
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
It is. And and I think in terms of changes, I can think of one valley in the middle of the Lake District, probably over the hill really, if we. The Thirlmere Valley and there used to be six farmers there. I'm administrator for the common. It's about 2500 hectares of common land there. There were about well, about the four farmers sort of ten years ago were now down to one. And that one farmer has been served notice to quit on their farm, and I won't, you know, go.
It's a matter under arbitration, but it is really tough. And we there is a plan. There's already a website saying about resilient Thirlmere rewilding the whole valley. And there's a very much. And we know that then then there will be more flexibility for that landowner in terms of what they do. But that family is facing a professional costs a quarter of £1 million to protect, you know, to, to try and contest there.
And these are always complex, you know, there's always, you know, nothing's ever straightforward. But the intention behind that is not to have better farming on that site, because the other three farms that they've got back in hand have not been relit.
It's a matter under arbitration, but it is really tough. And we there is a plan. There's already a website saying about resilient Thirlmere rewilding the whole valley. And there's a very much. And we know that then then there will be more flexibility for that landowner in terms of what they do. But that family is facing a professional costs a quarter of £1 million to protect, you know, to, to try and contest there.
And these are always complex, you know, there's always, you know, nothing's ever straightforward. But the intention behind that is not to have better farming on that site, because the other three farms that they've got back in hand have not been relit.
11:20
11:20
11:20
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I know exactly the area and the farm that you're referring to. And further down that range of fells. I was talking to a farmer just last week and he said to me, you look up at that fell up there, Adam. He said, my sheep are up there. He's not in any Commons agreement at the minute, but he said, my great pleasure in life is to walk every day up to there. And he said, and I see my sheep and they're in great condition.
There's plenty for them to eat. There's plenty of nature up there, and I genuinely believe I've got the balance right now. If I want to go into a Commons agreement, the first thing I will be told is you'll have to downsize your sheep flock, he said. I think I've got the balance right, and I don't think we're paying enough attention to those farmers who think, yes, we have got the balance right. And in terms of tenant farmers, he is a tenant farmer.
There is that pressure from some estates who are taking some or all of the land back in hand when they can. And because farm business tenancies are always for a fixed term, if they're not on an Agricultural Holdings Act tenancy, that pressure is definitely rising not only in Cumbria but across other northern counties as well. And that is as a result of schemes and the possibilities, perhaps in the future of forms of green finance. It's another pressure on farmers.
There's plenty for them to eat. There's plenty of nature up there, and I genuinely believe I've got the balance right now. If I want to go into a Commons agreement, the first thing I will be told is you'll have to downsize your sheep flock, he said. I think I've got the balance right, and I don't think we're paying enough attention to those farmers who think, yes, we have got the balance right. And in terms of tenant farmers, he is a tenant farmer.
There is that pressure from some estates who are taking some or all of the land back in hand when they can. And because farm business tenancies are always for a fixed term, if they're not on an Agricultural Holdings Act tenancy, that pressure is definitely rising not only in Cumbria but across other northern counties as well. And that is as a result of schemes and the possibilities, perhaps in the future of forms of green finance. It's another pressure on farmers.
11:21
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
There's a strong incentive for landlords to do this. This is effectively what l'm and inadvertent, I would say unintentional. And there are some great estates. You know, there are good estates doing good things. The National Trust has 90 farms. They want to farm. They want to, you know, have they have a nature led farming policy. They want farms there. So there are some really good examples of where we can do both.
And we need to do more of that. And that needs to be encouraged through government policy. The one thing we absolutely know from World War Two onwards that farmers are very agile and responsive to the signals sent by government through support. And if we can get that right, if we can build trust. Trust is hard won, easily lost. And if we can have consistency and ensure that people can access schemes, farmers will be the first to deliver a balanced approach to delivering these designated landscapes.
And we need to do more of that. And that needs to be encouraged through government policy. The one thing we absolutely know from World War Two onwards that farmers are very agile and responsive to the signals sent by government through support. And if we can get that right, if we can build trust. Trust is hard won, easily lost. And if we can have consistency and ensure that people can access schemes, farmers will be the first to deliver a balanced approach to delivering these designated landscapes.
11:22
11:22
11:23
11:23
11:23
11:23
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
I think as a committee, we are very conscious that farming looks and feels different in different parts of the country. That's essentially why we're here. We've made a real effort to get out and about around the UK. The fields are green here. They're not in Norfolk , where I'm from. That's a very strong difference at the moment. But even when we're here, there are even sort of more variances between owner occupiers, tenant farmers and commoners.
So if I'm feeling charitable, I do feel sorry for Defra. Sometimes writing a policy that covers all of those different challenges. But Adam, you've mentioned a word a couple of times today, which is co-design, which is absolutely crucial, I think. So we're not going to write Defra's policy today, but what does it look like around recognising the differences between owner occupiers, tenant farmers, and how does that get captured in a policy? I'll probably start with you, Julia.
Your sort of expertise. There
So if I'm feeling charitable, I do feel sorry for Defra. Sometimes writing a policy that covers all of those different challenges. But Adam, you've mentioned a word a couple of times today, which is co-design, which is absolutely crucial, I think. So we're not going to write Defra's policy today, but what does it look like around recognising the differences between owner occupiers, tenant farmers, and how does that get captured in a policy? I'll probably start with you, Julia.
Your sort of expertise. There
11:24
11:24
11:24
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, we've for the last since 20 1213, we the foundation for Common land. We were doing work, first of all, better outcomes in upland Commons and then our upland commons. And we work with 25 partners, including governments and national landscapes, national parks. And what we found is that if we have a facilitator, we've got these ingredients of success and in order. So that's trust, integrity, valuing local knowledge, consistency, those areas.
But also what we have is a sort of stepping stones to get there. The first is that social relationships at the heart of all change. So if you have strong social relationships within a community, if you have strong social relationships between landlords and tenants within a Commons association with Natural England, with the protected landscapes, with my friends of the Lake District and other bodies, we will. If we have those strong social relationships, we are much more likely to deliver change the next stepping stone, and these are sort of prerequisites, is that the farm business must be thriving.
And that's an absolutely prerequisite. If that is happening, then we can deliver those environmental outcomes. So it's looking through that lens of we have 86,000 farmers in the in England, roughly, you know, commercial farmers, if we say if we recognise they are farm businesses, they need to make a living, whether it's a part time or with 20 members of staff, they need to be solvent. So my view is, let's take that as the lens.
And we know that they can deliver in spades for the environment if we work with them and encourage that co-working. So and where we where we see really good practice, we deliver great outcomes. And that does happen. We've got examples from really good work that that we're doing. There's some good work in the Buttermere Fells that we've been doing there for many years. There's good work on the side.
There are areas where we know that all these partners can work well together.
But also what we have is a sort of stepping stones to get there. The first is that social relationships at the heart of all change. So if you have strong social relationships within a community, if you have strong social relationships between landlords and tenants within a Commons association with Natural England, with the protected landscapes, with my friends of the Lake District and other bodies, we will. If we have those strong social relationships, we are much more likely to deliver change the next stepping stone, and these are sort of prerequisites, is that the farm business must be thriving.
And that's an absolutely prerequisite. If that is happening, then we can deliver those environmental outcomes. So it's looking through that lens of we have 86,000 farmers in the in England, roughly, you know, commercial farmers, if we say if we recognise they are farm businesses, they need to make a living, whether it's a part time or with 20 members of staff, they need to be solvent. So my view is, let's take that as the lens.
And we know that they can deliver in spades for the environment if we work with them and encourage that co-working. So and where we where we see really good practice, we deliver great outcomes. And that does happen. We've got examples from really good work that that we're doing. There's some good work in the Buttermere Fells that we've been doing there for many years. There's good work on the side.
There are areas where we know that all these partners can work well together.
11:26
11:26
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So yeah. And the Commons are commons are complex. And that, you know, it is important when you have the you have a contract with Defra between the Commons Association and Defra, and below that you have something called an internal agreement. And that's a management agreement between all the parties, the landowners and all the commoners in Dartmoor, on the forest of Dartmoor. They have 380 people signed into that agreement. These are complex agreements they require.
That's sort of my role on the sort of quasi legal, you know, economic side of things to to make that and work with solicitors. But we need to really have Natural England at the heart of that. If we go back a couple of hundred years, we had these things called manorial courts and a lot of tenancies and commons were were managed through manorial courts, through the steward. We then lost that it was all to do with rather good thing of universal suffrage coming in.
But then we then have ended up in a position where it's been a little bit chaotic in terms of management of of commons. And we now have some very good governance systems available. Elinor Ostrom, the first woman to win the Nobel Prize for economics. Her work was based on managing commons in Switzerland. Her initial work, so that we know that if we can get it right on Commons, we can get it right at a landscape scale.
We can get it right across the States. We can get it right on. You know, these new landscape recovery systems. There's a lot of good practice. Sometimes Defra can be a little bit frightened of actually entering wholeheartedly into that process. Oh, that's nothing to do with us. You know, if you give all the money to Terry to go to the Bahamas, that's fine by us as long as you deliver the outcomes, you know, but but what we're saying is that that actually this is public money and we should be really clear about who's keeping that money.
We unfortunately see some really bad practice where either 1 or 2 commoners or 1 or 2 landowners use their power in order to lever a larger sum of that money. So managing money is really important. Public money should be well spent. And my view is that Defra has a responsibility to make sure that split between landlord and tenant, or the split between commoners and landowners should be better managed and more scrutiny placed on that.
That's sort of my role on the sort of quasi legal, you know, economic side of things to to make that and work with solicitors. But we need to really have Natural England at the heart of that. If we go back a couple of hundred years, we had these things called manorial courts and a lot of tenancies and commons were were managed through manorial courts, through the steward. We then lost that it was all to do with rather good thing of universal suffrage coming in.
But then we then have ended up in a position where it's been a little bit chaotic in terms of management of of commons. And we now have some very good governance systems available. Elinor Ostrom, the first woman to win the Nobel Prize for economics. Her work was based on managing commons in Switzerland. Her initial work, so that we know that if we can get it right on Commons, we can get it right at a landscape scale.
We can get it right across the States. We can get it right on. You know, these new landscape recovery systems. There's a lot of good practice. Sometimes Defra can be a little bit frightened of actually entering wholeheartedly into that process. Oh, that's nothing to do with us. You know, if you give all the money to Terry to go to the Bahamas, that's fine by us as long as you deliver the outcomes, you know, but but what we're saying is that that actually this is public money and we should be really clear about who's keeping that money.
We unfortunately see some really bad practice where either 1 or 2 commoners or 1 or 2 landowners use their power in order to lever a larger sum of that money. So managing money is really important. Public money should be well spent. And my view is that Defra has a responsibility to make sure that split between landlord and tenant, or the split between commoners and landowners should be better managed and more scrutiny placed on that.
11:28
11:28
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
There are particular challenges to different groups, but it's a huge frustration because we've talked a lot about the polarity between farming and conservation, which which is pretty manifest in, in, in, in Cumbria at this moment in time. It does mask the good work that is going on, but in real terms, taking what Julia's been talking about down to grassroots, sitting around the kitchen table. In an ideal world, what should be happening is the natural England field person should be sitting at Lisa's table, should be starting the conversation with what's important to you on this farm? What do you need to do on this farm for your farm production business? Then when that trust is built, walking around the farm, looking at features, looking at whatever that might be and advice being given, where trust builds up.
And instead, it's almost like in certain circumstances of them in this scenario, and that's never going to work. So we have to build trust. We have to pull people together. Our ecologists and conservationists must learn about the farm business and know exactly what that is, and that, in turn, will help our farmers to understand better practices in terms of nature and biodiversity and everything else. It's doable. It's not difficult, but it is being made very difficult.
And instead, it's almost like in certain circumstances of them in this scenario, and that's never going to work. So we have to build trust. We have to pull people together. Our ecologists and conservationists must learn about the farm business and know exactly what that is, and that, in turn, will help our farmers to understand better practices in terms of nature and biodiversity and everything else. It's doable. It's not difficult, but it is being made very difficult.
11:30
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
So Adam's just described what a good system would look like, Lisa, if the government came out with a new a new grant scheme tomorrow, what would go through your head? What's the sort of challenges for you to access that money? What you know, what's your sort of immediate reaction to, you know, how is it work on the ground? Do you go, yes. Or do you go, oh God, not another form to fill in?
11:30
11:30
11:30
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
You'd go through it. And, you know, we all want to work with nature. We all want to see everything there. So, you know, if it's for the benefit of the good of the environment, the benefit of the good of our cash flow, you go with it. You know, it's a bit like nobody wants to see the last of anything. And we want to protect what we've got. And we have to, you know, like, for instance, in the Lake District, a lot of what there is is a lot of stone walls, etc., isn't there? If somebody's come and said, you need to be planting hedges to create, you know, harvest mice, etcetera, to come back, you'd be keen to give it a go if the provided you as long as it didn't go right through the best of your hair meadows, you know, you'd have to have a balance somewhere as to where where you put it.
And that's what it's about. It's, you know, a bit of what Adam says, you know, a kitchen conversation with everybody. There is what it needs, and it all needs to be done on an individual basis rather than, you know, a scattergun approach that that fits everybody. Do
And that's what it's about. It's, you know, a bit of what Adam says, you know, a kitchen conversation with everybody. There is what it needs, and it all needs to be done on an individual basis rather than, you know, a scattergun approach that that fits everybody. Do
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:32
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And the National Trust have lots. of staff who help their tenants go into things. But sometimes what we're finding is land taken back in hand and, you know, let on shorter tenancies. Or the landlord enters into the SFI charges a rent. So I think one example of a farm just over, you know, on Shap and the farmer retired completely, no pressure or anything. He retired. The landlord kept the farm in hand.
Previously the rent had been 3000 large farm. Then the. They went into countryside stewardship, the old countryside stewardship and the income was £300,000 per annum. They're expecting under landscape recovery to get £700,000 per annum. The landlords will be getting that and they will be charging conservation graziers to graze that land. So that just shows where public money is flowing and that 700 zero zero £0, yes, it's a big farm, but, you know, it could be spread among a lot of things.
And this is the problem is that there's no plan for this money. It's like Taylor Swift, if you want to buy 20 tickets, you can buy 20 tickets.
Previously the rent had been 3000 large farm. Then the. They went into countryside stewardship, the old countryside stewardship and the income was £300,000 per annum. They're expecting under landscape recovery to get £700,000 per annum. The landlords will be getting that and they will be charging conservation graziers to graze that land. So that just shows where public money is flowing and that 700 zero zero £0, yes, it's a big farm, but, you know, it could be spread among a lot of things.
And this is the problem is that there's no plan for this money. It's like Taylor Swift, if you want to buy 20 tickets, you can buy 20 tickets.
11:33
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Well, an example of, you know, a farm that is in private ownership that I know of that's just recently been been rented. Basically, the landlord's gone and said, if you get more payments than this, we want it. You know, it's capped how much they can actually take. And it's not a big farm. That's when it's unfair. But as I say, we're on a National Trust farm. We haven't sort of seen that.
11:33
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Good. And just lastly, Julia, the government's tried to make access fairer by putting the 100 K cap on, say, SFI, for example. But even so, it's a it's a race to access that before the money runs out because it will never be enough to to cover all of the need. Do you think sort of tenant farmers, commoners that's helped with that approach, or does it still need to sort of evolve and change? Well.
11:34
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
It's really it's just a very simplistic approach because if you actually are common, say you're bramfeld and they do open up, which is 2700 hectares, they would want to go into a scheme. They wouldn't be able to put their comment into a scheme. SFI because they wouldn't, because they would be above the the £100,000 cap, because it just shows that the system doesn't necessarily it's not it's well intentioned. But, you know, we've asked Defra, we've written and said, could they please lift £100,000 cap for comments? We got 23 active farmers on that common.
So actually their share of that is going to be less than £100,000. But their court, I think 100,000, it varies a lot. A lot of farms, you know, will only be going for 5 or £10,000. I can't remember the blog that was produced last week said what the average claim was, was about 7000 or something under SFI. So it's a, it , it's, it's going in the right direction. So but it's and I'm, you know, this is nothing against Norfolk, but what we have seen is quite a flow of money from Cumbria.
BS money from Cumbria has flown to winter bird food mix agreements in Norfolk. And I know Norfolk farmers who tell me that they have, you know, their average earning per hectare is now 500/560 pounds per hectare, while in Cumbria, you know, you're stuck on, you know your £80 for your HLS. There are good payments available, as you can see in the column here, £164 for moorland under tier. But you can't actually get them at the moment and that is the problem.
On paper there's equal access, but in practice there isn't.
So actually their share of that is going to be less than £100,000. But their court, I think 100,000, it varies a lot. A lot of farms, you know, will only be going for 5 or £10,000. I can't remember the blog that was produced last week said what the average claim was, was about 7000 or something under SFI. So it's a, it , it's, it's going in the right direction. So but it's and I'm, you know, this is nothing against Norfolk, but what we have seen is quite a flow of money from Cumbria.
BS money from Cumbria has flown to winter bird food mix agreements in Norfolk. And I know Norfolk farmers who tell me that they have, you know, their average earning per hectare is now 500/560 pounds per hectare, while in Cumbria, you know, you're stuck on, you know your £80 for your HLS. There are good payments available, as you can see in the column here, £164 for moorland under tier. But you can't actually get them at the moment and that is the problem.
On paper there's equal access, but in practice there isn't.
11:35
11:35
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Right. Well buckle up. I've got a few questions on grazing and moorland management. We touched on this at the start. Adam. But Julia, I want to come to you because you've touched on this a few times already. Quite a lot of the evidence that we've received has been characterized as saying that Natural England often defaults to reducing stocking rates. Do you feel as a farmer, that alternative management options are being given sufficient consideration?
11:36
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I wouldn't feel that the act, such as, for instance, the system that we were looking at, it was a bit of a case. They weren't willing to come back to the table and negotiate and meet in the middle. It was a case of their figures were what had to be stuck to, but they weren't prepared to go out and do a walk of the fell and see what there is and and see how it was beforehand. It was a case of no, we need to reduce it further to this.
11:36
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Can I just say on the subject about Phil and livestock, if you're foolish enough to spend any time on Twitter and I really wouldn't recommend it, you will see some fairly extravagant claims made about levels of mortality and animal welfare. Talk me through how you see and how you manage your stock in upland areas. Sheep in particular.
11:37
11:37
11:37
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
No, you treat them if they go lame. A lot of the reason why sheep now go lame is because everybody's encouraged to take them off the fells, to winter them in the lowlands, whereby the cows in the lowlands tend to have dermatitis in the feed. And so the sheep come back to the fells and they fetch that with them from the lowlands. That's a bit of what happens. But when if they're up on the fell and they get foot rot, the flies attract into the feet and basically they have them under the body like that.
And then so they get maggots in there and you can't treat them on the fell, but you tend not to get as much as that on the fell as you do in the fields, because it's colder up there. They don't tend, they don't tend to, to thrive, but it's in every farmer's interest for the welfare of a stock to be looked after and treat. Right. You know, everybody can miss something in a field that something's taken ill after you've been round, but you treat it as soon as you as soon as you find it, you know, and you recall you have to farmers now to sell the stock at the auction.
You've either got what they call a van number, which says that you've had a vet inspection to say that your husband is up to a requirement, or you can be in what they call a red tractor babbled. And then, you know, it's displayed on the board that you're actually in them schemes. And some companies won't actually buy your products if you're not in them schemes. The sea is a premium that you're looking after things correctly.
I mean,
And then so they get maggots in there and you can't treat them on the fell, but you tend not to get as much as that on the fell as you do in the fields, because it's colder up there. They don't tend, they don't tend to, to thrive, but it's in every farmer's interest for the welfare of a stock to be looked after and treat. Right. You know, everybody can miss something in a field that something's taken ill after you've been round, but you treat it as soon as you as soon as you find it, you know, and you recall you have to farmers now to sell the stock at the auction.
You've either got what they call a van number, which says that you've had a vet inspection to say that your husband is up to a requirement, or you can be in what they call a red tractor babbled. And then, you know, it's displayed on the board that you're actually in them schemes. And some companies won't actually buy your products if you're not in them schemes. The sea is a premium that you're looking after things correctly.
I mean,
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:39
11:39
11:39
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Just very briefly, I think what's important is that this is very unhelpful, that going into the detail is that anything that polarizes farmers from nature conservation is deeply unhelpful. And leaving aside the whole personal nature of that particular article, which I think was very unfortunate, I think what we and what we I would say is that what we're all the work we're trying to do, and I know Adam and the farmer network and the Foundation for Commandant is building trust and bringing people together.
Those sorts of articles that was in the spectator makes our job ten times harder. Because why, as a farmer, would you want to come to the table to discuss nature.
Those sorts of articles that was in the spectator makes our job ten times harder. Because why, as a farmer, would you want to come to the table to discuss nature.
11:40
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Conservation if that was how you were going to be met when you got there? Yeah. Lovely point. Well made. At least I've come back to you. We've heard that a constant reductions in stocking levels are now posing a threat to this system of hefted stock, which you work with, I think. Is that right? Yes. What do you think? How important is that hefted system for the whole farming community and the cultural heritage, the way that you farm here?
11:40
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Well, to start with, the cultural heritage, what you traditionally usually have is there's like what they call joint gathers whereby, you know, on that particular fell, you could have four different heads owned by four different people. And so they all come together on a day. It has to be a clear day when there's no mist on the top, and the weather has to be correct, and they all gather them in and then at the sheep pen, sort off their own and they all go their separate ways.
It's just so frustrating when you have to go so much further to gather your own heft. And it's the same for everybody.
It's just so frustrating when you have to go so much further to gather your own heft. And it's the same for everybody.
11:41
11:41
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I'm hearing this constantly from upland farmers in the Lake District and the Pennines as well. The impact of those sheep reductions and in some cases, whole flocks side by side by side on the top of the fell are having a major impact in some areas. The shepherds are telling me that they're having to go miles and miles past the original , traditional heft into other areas or other valleys. They're telling me that the bracken creep, as a result of the reducing sheep numbers, is making it impossible to gather.
The sheep hide in the bracken, they and the dogs are worked to death. And I've almost had farmers in tears sitting in my office telling me about this. So it's it's the impact of the loss of the sheep on the remaining shepherds, which is an equally important pressure which is building in some areas of the lake.
The sheep hide in the bracken, they and the dogs are worked to death. And I've almost had farmers in tears sitting in my office telling me about this. So it's it's the impact of the loss of the sheep on the remaining shepherds, which is an equally important pressure which is building in some areas of the lake.
11:42
11:42
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
It absolutely is. And that gathering is a skill in itself. You can't just set ten people off on a hill and say, go there, go there, go then bring all the sheep with your dog. Those shepherds and those families, some of whom are intergenerational, know every area of that fell. They know where the sheep will actually be hiding, because the sheep will teach their next generation of sheep that that's where they go.
This is what hefting is. It's acclimatization. It's a mother's use teaching their young stock where they need to be on the fell. It's so important and so valuable.
This is what hefting is. It's acclimatization. It's a mother's use teaching their young stock where they need to be on the fell. It's so important and so valuable.
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:43
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I'd like you to ask that question, actually, because there seems to be a stumbling block and we've said it frequently. There's this huge frustration. Farmers are trying to have that conversation. And invariably, habitat recovery seems to always be predicated on reducing sheep reduce the sheep. And and I'd like to know that question.
11:43
11:43
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? And many farmers, upland farmers, say to me, there are areas of the field that they know that they understand. They know better than anybody what is up there, and they don't seem to be able to be getting that, that message across. So how that plays out in the future, we'll have to see. But there is huge frustration that farmers are trying to say, we know what's good on here and we know what could be done better.
11:44
11:44
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
And then I mean, there are other wider consequences for the way in which you manage moorland. And we've seen this summer quite dramatic scenes across the upland communities and other moorland communities. And you touched on this earlier, I think. Do you feel we've got that balance right in terms of managing the land to mitigate the wildfire risk?
11:45
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Not at all. And that's not me saying that. That is farmers saying that. Frankly, in Cumbria this year we've dodged a bullet. There are areas, not all areas, but there are many areas across the uplands in Cumbria that farmers say have been under grazed for some time, and the burden of dead grasses, the build up of combustible. Vegetation or dried dead vegetation, white grass, as we call it up here, is ever increasing, and there is real concern in the farming community across this county that at some stage, one of the major fells is going to go, and when it goes, it won't stop.
There's real concern about this.
There's real concern about this.
11:45
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And the farmers can do a lot to help. So in Dartmoor, we, my member of staff down there worked on with 30 of the 34 Commons associations, put together wildfire action plans. So this is what do we do in the case of a fire ensuring farmers are trained. They can use they have, you know, use their quad bikes. There are lots of ways that they work with the fire service. So there's a combination of things that have been proactive in terms of firebreaks, but there's also areas of being making sure that we work collectively because we know that the summers are likely to continue to get hotter.
So how do we collectively ensure and mitigate against fires happening in the first place?
So how do we collectively ensure and mitigate against fires happening in the first place?
11:46
11:46
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And then they're not going to be there. And that's a real concern if we I mean, Dartmoor and Exmoor Quantocks, they're further south . And Sarah will know from, you know, her neck of the woods that there are more pressure, you know, in terms of climate down there. There are a lot of there was a big fire in the New Forest. So which is a common as well. And we know there that farmers could have been well integrated, better integrated into that.
11:47
11:47
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I think it was just a yes, most mainly just a statement really, because I think you said earlier that the government seems to have lost sight that cultural heritage is a public good, and we do risk losing all the skills . We drove on the way here. We saw the dry stone walling, which is absolutely beautiful. We've talked a lot about that hefting. So I think really I just say is our key message back to the government not to lose sight of this and to make sure that they put support behind it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
11:47
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah, yeah. Yes. I would say let's have an integrated approach. So it's and Adam and I, you know, you came to that event we did in 2019 where we say we want a culture rich, not nature rich Lake District. And that is an area with a, you know, we have the new Lake District partnership plan is that again, it's not either or. We can do both. And but we have to support farmers to be there.
We would like to have the same number of commoners there. Going back to my analogy, you know, if your choir and the cathedral, you know, the back row only has, you know, one base on each side, you know, suddenly it's not it's, you're not getting a great voice from that. And what we want to have is healthy younger people and the back line and the choir, the commoners being there of all ages. And if we can encourage that through public payments for public goods and ensure that nature recovery, climate resilience alongside cultural heritage are working together, and it's by working together and valuing each other, we will get better outcomes.
We would like to have the same number of commoners there. Going back to my analogy, you know, if your choir and the cathedral, you know, the back row only has, you know, one base on each side, you know, suddenly it's not it's, you're not getting a great voice from that. And what we want to have is healthy younger people and the back line and the choir, the commoners being there of all ages. And if we can encourage that through public payments for public goods and ensure that nature recovery, climate resilience alongside cultural heritage are working together, and it's by working together and valuing each other, we will get better outcomes.
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:49
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
What might be the implications for rural communities if nature markets become a major source of upland upland income, for example, peatland restoration, for example? It looks very different in Cumbria than it does down in Somerset. But both regions face kind of fundamental question of how we support farmers and land managers, deliver the kind of climate and water benefits without undermining their their businesses viability. So on. On that basis, how will that change impact rural communities?
11:50
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
You're talking about communities disappearing because large corporations like to do have simple transaction costs. And that means it's much easier to deal with one person rather than, you know, 21 people on a common. So commons aren't really very attractive for this. And what we're finding is that we, you know, we're having our communities literally disappearing. They're at risk of that because it's not financially viable for them to continue. You won't get the next generation coming through.
And what we need is to ensure that there is a living wage. You know, if people's sons and daughters wish to come into a farming business, and the figures I gave in showed that, you know, we are at risk of farming. You know, it really doesn't produce a living wage. And, and so we I would say that if you just simply go for peatland restoration, it needs to be. Yes, we need peatland restoration. But alongside other things.
Again, anything that's single agenda has significant risks for rural communities.
And what we need is to ensure that there is a living wage. You know, if people's sons and daughters wish to come into a farming business, and the figures I gave in showed that, you know, we are at risk of farming. You know, it really doesn't produce a living wage. And, and so we I would say that if you just simply go for peatland restoration, it needs to be. Yes, we need peatland restoration. But alongside other things.
Again, anything that's single agenda has significant risks for rural communities.
11:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Absolutely. We've already talked about the fact that there are a number of estates that are taking land back in hand and embracing every scheme that there is with relish. The knock on effect, as we said earlier, is, is happening now that communities are having pressure placed upon. We have farmhouses now on the market as separate entities, people buying them for second homes or, or, or Airbnbs. This is happening now, and communities in Cumbria are starting to feel that pressure already, and also that circular rural economy, because if that land is no longer farmed, that farm is no longer buying goods and services from other people that support that farm business.
It's happening now. Yeah.
It's happening now. Yeah.
11:51
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I find myself wishing that we had started at 9:00 instead of 10:00, because I could run this for the rest of the day, actually. But Adam, you have important duties elsewhere in the show field and we are up against the time. So can I thank you? I said at the start that this was about making sure that people felt that they were being heard. I hope that in a small measure, perhaps people in a community like this today will feel that they are being heard and that that might be a better direction of travel in the future as this conversation develops.
So can I thank you for your attendance, for your engagement, for your enormously important evidence. But for the moment, I'm afraid we are beaten by the clock. Order, order!
So can I thank you for your attendance, for your engagement, for your enormously important evidence. But for the moment, I'm afraid we are beaten by the clock. Order, order!