This is the 11th report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (HCP 544-I, session 2007-08, ISBN 9780215524201) and focuses on the potential of England's rural economy. A report from the Rural Advocate to the Prime Minister in June 2008 (http://www.ruralcommunities.gov.uk/files/CRC74.pdf), estimated the untapped potential from rural business as between £236 billion and £347 billion per annum. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has not commented on these figures, but the Committee believes that if the figures are accurate, tackling the factors that inhibit growth of businesses in rural areas could make a substantial difference to the performance of England's economy as a whole. The Committee states that DEFRA should produce its own estimate and that the Department's present approach to the rural economy will not deliver the tailored solutions that rural business needs. DEFRA's new Departmental Strategic Objective (DSO) does not convince the Committee that this will identify the factors inhibiting economic growth. The DSO is spilt into two intermediate outcomes: (i) that the needs of rural people are met through mainstream policy; (ii) by supporting economic growth in rural areas with the lowest levels of performance. Both these outcomes are directed towards the objective of developing "Strong Rural Communities". For the Committee, DEFRA should focus on achieving economic growth across rural areas as a whole, and not exclusively concentrate on areas of the lowest performance and that the indicators obtained from the DSOs are incomplete, because they do not include transport, communications, planning and further education. Also, there is no distinction between different types and sizes of rural community. The Committee further states that DEFRA needs to consult with the Commission for Rural Communities on whether the indicators represent the best way of identifying problems. The delivery of the DSO's will also depend heavily on other Departments, Regional Development Agencies and local authorities and DEFRA needs to produce a delivery plan setting out what assistance it needs from these bodies.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Natural England have not optimised value for money for the almost £200 million scheme to encourage farmers into organic farming and deliver environmental benefits. The Organic Entry Level Stewardship uses EU money and matched funding from UK taxpayers. Defra's forecasts for expenditure of EU funds assumed a constant rate of take-up each year, which the NAO considers over-optimistic, and present a risk that EU funds will not all be utilised. The scheme pays organic farmers for managing their land in ways that will protect or enhance the natural environment or historic landscape. The scheme is likely to have achieved environmental benefits by supporting organic farming, and the money paid to farmers for adopting environmental land management measures has had some impact, but this could be increased. Farmers can choose which environmental measures to implement and, according to the NAO survey, 57 per cent chose some measures that involve managing features already in place on their farm. Many of the more challenging options are rarely implemented. Defra is now taking steps to improve the environmental impact of the scheme by promoting better targeted measures. Take-up of the scheme broadly reflects take-up of organic farming methods in the farming industry as a whole. The scheme benefits larger farms, especially in the beef and dairy sectors, more than smaller farms.
The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) was created in June 2001, by the merger of a number of government departments. It co-ordinates and implements policies relating to sustainable development, food and farming, air, water, land and rural communities. This is the annual report of the Select Committee set up to oversee the work of DEFRA and its associated bodies during the 2002. The report notes that the Committee's ability to carry out financial oversight of DEFRA was undermined by the way in which financial data was set out in the Department's 2002 annual report (Cm. 5422, ISBN 0101542224). It recommends that future annual reports should include an analysis of DEFRA's performance against each of its Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets.
This Command Paper sets out the Government's strategy for sustainable development, taking into account the national and international developments that have occurred since its previous policy statement ('A better quality of life: a strategy for sustainable development in the United Kingdom', Cm 4345; ISBN 0101434529) published in May 1999, including devolution in Scotland and Wales and the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. The strategy is based on four agreed priorities of sustainable consumption and production, climate change, natural resource protection, and sustainable communities with a focus on tackling environmental inequalities; and uses a new indicator set with commitments to look at new indicators such as on well-being. Proposals include: the establishment of a new Community Action 2020 programme; and strengthening the role of the Sustainable Development Commission to ensure an independent review of government progress, with all central government departments and executive agencies to produce sustainable development actions plans by December 2005.
The Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra) has made some progress in following up the recommendations of the Farming Regulation Task Force, which called for a new approach to the culture of regulation. But farmers consider the rate of improvement continues to be slow. Eighty-four per cent of farmers surveyed believe oversight bodies should co-ordinate their activity more. The cost of complying with regulations is on average around a tenth of a farm's net profit. The NAO estimates that, during 2011-12, nine separate government bodies made at least 114,000 visits to English farms. More than half of these were to carry out disease surveillance and testing and 30 per cent to check for farmers' compliance, at a total cost of £47 million. The bodies inspecting farms often collect the same information separately and there is only limited sharing of intelligence which would help with the better targeting of resources. The current approach will not deliver the scale of change expected by the sector, and contrasts with the progress made in Scotland where oversight bodies have come together to identify redundant activity and cut one in six farm visits. Defra has not collected sufficient data to understand the scale, nature, and effectiveness of English farm oversight activity. It does not routinely collect or analyse data on the overall number and pattern of farm visits, or on levels of compliance across all regulatory regimes. Alternatives to physical inspections might be more widely adopted as a way of improving compliance.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has delivered some value from the £39.3 million spent on its geographic information strategy and activities. However, the Department has not tracked the full cost of geographic information and systems to it or its arm's length bodies, or systematically measured benefits. The Department has been able to identify savings of only approximately £9 million. The figures for costs and benefits are both likely to be underestimates. This lack of financial information means that the NAO cannot determine that value for money has been achieved. Geographic information is a vital resource used by the Department and its arm's length bodies for a wide range of activities including policy making, decision making, day-to-day operations and keeping the public informed. However, neither the original strategy, nor the updated 2009 version, set business targets for cost reduction or quantified the benefits that could be achieved by collaboration or by sharing geographic information and systems. The aim of the strategy is to share geographic information between the Department and its arm's length bodies, as well as make best use of geographic information systems. The Department has had some success in delivering these services, but has not quantified the costs and benefits of geographic information and systems in all its arm's length bodies. Although the Department has put in place appropriate technical governance, strategic governance arrangements could be strengthened. The Department and its arm's length bodies have a good level of specialist skills, but these skills could be better integrated into the business so that the benefits of geographic information are fully realised across the Department.
This white paper sets out proposals for a detailed programme of action to repair damage done to the environment in the past, and urges everyone to get involved in helping nature to flourish at all levels - from neighbourhoods to national parks. The plans are directly linked to the groundbreaking research in the National Ecosystem Assessment that showed the strong economic arguments for safeguarding and enhancing the natural environment. They also act on the recommendations of 'Making Space for Nature', a report into the state of England's wildlife sites, led by Professor John Lawton and published in September 2010, which showed that England's wildlife sites are fragmented and not able to respond to the pressures of climate change and other pressures we put on our land. Key measures proposed include: i) Reconnecting nature with New Nature Improvement Areas (NIAs) with a £7.5 million fund for 12 initial NIAs, biodiversity offsetting, New Local Nature Partnerships with £1 million available this year, phasing out peat, ii) Connecting people and nature for better quality of life with Green Areas Designation, better urban green spaces; more children experiencing nature by learning outdoors, strengthening local public health activities, the new environmental volunteering initiative "Muck in 4 Life" to improve places in towns and countryside for people and nature to enjoy and iii) Capturing and improving the value of nature with a Natural Capital Committee; an annual statement of green accounts for UK Plc, a business-led Task Force to expand the UK business opportunities from new products and services which are good for the economy and nature alike.
The myriad choices millions of people make every day over what food to buy and from where to buy it shape the nation's food production and supply systems. It is essential to harness these decisions to support the public policy goal of enabling all to access healthy and affordable food. Both supply and demand issues must be managed if a growing world population is to be fed at a time when environmental impacts, including those of climate change, are constraining food production. In this report the Committee make recommendations on managing consumer demand, such as by encouraging the purchase of sustainably sourced products or the most nutritious food in order to help to deliver environmental and health goals.
Holding managers to account for the resources they have been allocated is key to improving financial management at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. This need has been recognised by the Department and reflected in a programme to improve its financial management, but the Department's Management Board recognises that establishing a culture of tighter control over its expenditure will take time. This initiative must remain a top priority and managers throughout the organisation will need to produce more reliable estimates of costs to justify their bids for resources and track the cost effectiveness of work done. The budgets agreed by the Management Board at the outset of 2006-07 and 2007-08 exceeded the funds available. In early 2006-07, increased spending to remedy difficulties with the Single Payment Scheme led to a risk of overspending in that year and the Department instigated a review which identified savings of £170 million against its original budget of £3,854 million. During the early part of 2007-08 further commitments above the agreed budget allocations meant the Department was at risk of exceeding its spending limit by £140 million. In July 2007, the Management Board identified savings which partially balanced the budget and continues to work towards a balanced budget for the year end. Effective monitoring by the Management Board and greater integration between the systems for monitoring performance delivery and financial expenditure would help better management of budgets. The NAO recommends that the Management Board set budgets from 2008-09 onwards that balance with the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review and develops benchmarks to test the rigour of proposed budgets and to provide confirmation that these resource bids accord with the Department's strategic objectives.
Introduced under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the new right of access (commonly known as the 'right to roam') was phased in between September 2004 and October 2005, giving walkers the right to walk on large areas of the English countryside without having to keep to specified paths. 865,000 hectares of land (around 6.5 per cent of all land in England) is in practice open to the public and of this, 733,000 hectares is land to which no right of access previously existed. The NAO report finds that the right to roam was successfully introduced by the Countryside Agency in conjunction with Defra two months ahead of target, with easy access to over 90 per cent of the sites tested. There were initial problems with the countryside access website established to provide public information about the scheme, relating to the quality of online maps of access land and to the search function, but these had begun to improve by April 2006. The cost of implementing the open access programme was almost double the original estimate, largely due to a failure to pilot test the implementation of the scheme and a lack of adequate project management. In total, the cost of implementation is estimated to be £69 million and ongoing running costs are expected to be around £13 million in 2006-07. Although the benefits of the scheme cannot be easily quantified in financial terms, the NAO's initial assessment of the new right of access finds that it passed the key test of whether walkers can use it. Recommendations made include that in order to improve public transport facilities to enable people on low incomes and from urban areas to have more opportunities to use their new right of access, the Agency should explore with local councils the cost-effectiveness of diverting weekend bus services past open access land.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its Animal Health agency successfully contained limited outbreaks of Avian Influenza and Foot and Mouth Disease in 2007. The estimated £33 million expenditure by Animal Health in 2007-08 on dealing with these exotic disease outbreaks has represented good value for money when compared to the economic costs of these diseases becoming more widespread. The control of some of the more serious endemic diseases has been managed less successfully. Good progress has been made with the control of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), Scrapie and Salmonella, but Bovine Tuberculosis has continued to spread. In 2007-08, tackling Bovine Tuberculosis accounted for 39 per cent of Animal Health's total expenditure. Herd restrictions are applied immediately when disease is identified, but compliance with the requirements for routine testing to detect disease is not rigorously enforced. There are no national standards on farm biosecurity to minimise the risk of diseases spreading. The Department, Animal Health and other inspection bodies, such as local authorities, do not systematically collect and share information about biosecurity risks. Beekeepers have reported unusually high losses of honeybees in recent years and, now that the Varroa parasite is endemic, honeybee colonies are more vulnerable to other diseases. Controlling Varroa and monitoring of other diseases is hampered by the limited inspections of colonies carried out by the Department's National Bee Unit. An estimated 20,000 beekeepers are not known to the Unit's inspectors and are less likely to notify the Department of any diseases.
This is the second edition of Defra's social and environmental guidance to Ofwat. Its purpose is to provide Ofwat with a steer on the key environmental and social policies to which the Government expects it to contribute in carrying out its role as the independent economic regulator of the water industry. It should be read in conjunction with the Strategic policy statement [appended]. Ofwat is required to have regard to this Guidance when discharging its statutory functions. The Guidance covers Ofwat's work in relation to water and sewerage undertakers and licensed water suppliers who operate wholly or mainly in England
The long-term securing of the UK's food supplies is a fundamental responsibility of Government. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) must concentrate on building capacity in the food and farming industries so that they can respond to market signals in ways that will reduce the risk of food shortages. Producing sufficient food is only part of the challenge: how food is produced is equally important. The Committee notes that increases in production will have to take place in the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the food system, reducing reliance on fossil fuel-derived inputs, and conserving soil and water. Consumer engagement will be vital if Defra is to achieve its vision for the UK food system. The report does not advocate food self-sufficiency for the UK and emphasises the importance of strong trading relationships with a variety of countries. Defra's response to the challenge of securing food supplies must take place in a European and global context. The focus of the reformed Common Agricultural Policy must be on sustainable food production, whilst encouraging European farmers to make their contribution to meeting the world's future food demands. The Committee also highlights the development of "food colonialism" or "land grabbing"- a phenomenon that involves the large-scale acquisition of land overseas by wealthy investors in order to grow food for people in the investor country. The report also calls for an urgent increase in spending on public-sector food and farming research.
This document sets out the Government's response to the public consultation on the draft Climate Change Bill (Cm. 7040, ISBN 9780101704021) and to the reports of the following Parliamentary Committees during session 2006-07: the Joint Committee on the Draft Climate Change Bill (HLP 170-I/HCP 542-I, ISBN 9780104011379); the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (HCP 534-I, ISBN 9780215034892); and the Environmental Audit Committee (HCP 460, ISBN 9780215035561). The Climate Change Bill seeks to introduce a clear, credible and long-term framework to support emissions reductions in the UK, designed to maximise the social and economic benefits and minimise costs, and also sets out an international precedent, reinforcing the UK's position as a consistent leader in the field of climate change and energy policy. This document explains the main changes the Government intends to make to the Bill, taking into account the consultation responses and the recommendations of the three Parliamentary Committees, and key elements of the Bill include: putting into statute the UK's domestic targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through domestic and international action by at least 60 per cent by 2050, and 26 to 32 per cent by 2020, against a 1990 baseline; secondary legislation to set binding limits known as carbon budgets on aggregate carbon dioxide emissions over five year periods; and the creation of a new independent body, the Committee on Climate Change, to advise on setting carbon budgets.
This report is the 15th edition in the series which provides data on the economic conditions of the UK agriculture industry. The Government will draw on this information when considering policy issues, including proposals by the European Commission in respect of the Common Agricultural Policy and the provision for agricultural support in 2003/04. The report covers: key events in 2002; farming income and agriculture in the economy; the structure of the industry; prices; commodities; accounts; productivity; subsidies; public expenditure on agriculture; and environmental issues.
Defra's budget for day-to-day spending is to be cut by 15% over the next four years. This will be difficult to achieve since total budget reductions of about a quarter during the last Parliament have already identified easily achievable savings and removed the more obvious inefficiencies across the Defra family. Defra is one of the smaller government departments, with Exchequer funding of just over £2 billion, but it performs vital functions. We endorse the Defra Secretary of State's vision for a world-class food and farming sector, a robust rural economy and an enhanced natural environment. Managing environmental and rural economy issues together can help deliver that vision but this, together with meeting the challenges of protecting the UK from natural hazards, requires adequate resources. Protecting the nation against, for example, flood and animal or plant diseases carries multi-million pound costs; the costs to the economy, society and the environment of not doing so may, however, be even greater. The challenges facing Defra are first whether the reduced budget available to it is sufficient for its task, and second how to make the correct policy choices so as to allocate smaller funds effectively.
The European Union introduced a Directive in 1999 requiring all Member States to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste disposed in landfill, with targets set for the years 2010, 2013 and 2020. Failure to achieve the targets will result in fines being levied by the European Commission. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is responsible for ensuring that these landfill targets are met at a national level. As part of this, Defra is overseeing a programme of new locaI authority PFI contracts for the construction of waste treatment facilities. The review focuses on Defra's role in seeking to promote the achievement of value for money from the waste PFI programme, the progress being made in delivering new local authority waste projects and good practice in the development of these programmes.
In 1999 the European Union introduced a Directive that require the UK to reduce the amount of biodegradable waste disposed of in landfill. By 2010 we have to landfill 75% of the amount landfilled in 1995. This figure reduces to 50% by 2013 and 35% by 2020. If the target is not met then the UK could be fined for non-compliance. So far DEFRA has spent £336 million on initiatives to reduce the amount of landfill, but reductions have been offset by growth in the amount of waste produced and there is a risk that the targets will not be met. An emphasis on recycling alone is not enough. DEFRA needs to focus on helping the 25 authorities that send most to landfill and help develop alternative waste facilities, as well as encouraging more households to recycle and compost. This examination of the problem is in four parts: 1) England needs to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste disposed through landfill; 2) earlier delays I taking action made European Union targets more difficult to achieve; 3) without a step change in existing local authority plans, England will not achieve its share of the reductions in landfill the European Union requires by 2010 and 2013; 4) recycling and minimisation need to contribute more to reducing the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill.
Despite the fact that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made improvements in its financial management, the NAO cannot yet conclude that the Department is achieving value for money in its financial management activity. This is because the spending watchdog expected faster progress in improving performance since it last reported in 2008 and a higher level of financial maturity, given the resources spent and the focus on financial management. The Department has undertaken a number of projects designed to strengthen its financial management. These have had some positive results, such as revised management reporting and improved forecasting, although the Department has not fully assessed all the benefits of these projects. Despite increasing the number of permanent, qualified finance staff and also offering financial skills training courses for non-financial staff, there are still weaknesses in financial capability. Financial skills could also be better integrated across the Department. The Department should also focus on improving its commercial skills, such as contract management. It should also develop a strategic model for engagement with its arm's-length bodies, to understand the risks that they face and opportunities open to them. Since 2002, Defra has consistently underspent against its Parliamentary estimate. The underspend in 2010-11 was £530 million (10 per cent). The Department has, however, improved its management of expenditure against its departmental expenditure limit, reducing its underspend in 2010-11 to £34 million (one per cent of expenditure).
The demise on 3 June 2009 of Dairy Farmers of Britain (DFB) resulted in substantial losses for its 1,813 farmer members. It also resulted in more than a thousand job losses. A market crash was avoided, thanks to the positive response of - among others - the receivers, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Welsh Assembly Government, and, in general the dairy industry itself. The Committee believes the way in which DFB pursued its vertical integration strategy was over-ambitious. No single factor caused the demise of the DFB although the purchase of Associated Cooperatives Creameries (ACC) for a total of £81 million in 2004 had lasting repercussions. They are satisfied that DFB did not fail because it was a co-operative. However, its failure draws attention to a number of ways in which UK dairy co-operatives could be strengthened. Defra should be offering advice and assistance and they are urged to set up a task force comprising the Financial Services Authority, members of the banking community and industry representatives to investigate ways to overcome constraints on capitalising agricultural co-operatives. Defra must also raise with the Treasury the need to ensure that farmers are not taxed on money that is only notionally paid out to them and actually retained by their co-operative. They also recommend that Defra produce a report examining governance and capital raising arrangements in successful co-operatives overseas. The collapse of DFB also draws attention to the urgent need to update insolvency legislation as it applies to co-operatives.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.