NFNPA 31/05

NEW FOREST NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY

AUTHORITY MEETING – 20 SEPTEMBER 2005

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT FUND Report by: Emma Rigglesworth, Policy Adviser Summary: 1. The Sustainable Development Fund will be available in the New Forest from April

2006. The Fund will provide £200,000 per annum until March 2008 to support projects which develop and test new ways of achieving a more sustainable way of living in national parks.

2. This paper sets out how the Fund might operate in the New Forest. Recommendations: 1. That a full-time officer be employed to manage the Sustainable Development

Fund (the Fund) and provide project development support for both the Fund and LEADER+.

2. To explore utilising the New Forest LEADER+ Local Action Group as the Grant

Advisory Panel for the Sustainable Development Fund. 3. To launch the Sustainable Development Fund in the Autumn 2005. 4. To provide training for the National Park Authority and Panel members on the

Sustainable Development Fund. 5. To produce an application form by the end of October 2005 to allow applications

to be considered prior to the start date of April 2006. 6. That the Sustainable Development Fund does not prioritise themes which are

currently being funded under New Forest LEADER+.

7. To set up a small task/finish group to guide the development and operation of the Sustainable Development Fund in the New Forest.

8. To note the proposed Sustainable Development Fund timescale. Resources: One full-time member of staff plus accountancy, publicity and administrative support. Other major considerations: None.

1

NFNPA 31/05

NEW FOREST NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY MEETING 20 SEPTEMBER 2005

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT FUND

Background 1. The Sustainable Development Fund (the Fund) was launched in the English

national parks and the Broads in July 2002 by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

2. The Fund is intended to provide a flexible and non-bureaucratic means of funding

projects which aid the achievement of national park purposes by encouraging individuals, community groups and businesses to co-operate together to develop practical sustainable solutions to the management of their activities. Projects should develop and test new ways of achieving a more sustainable way of living in national parks and in particular change the attitudes and behaviour of individuals and communities.

3. The Fund will operate in the New Forest National Park from April 2006 and will

amount to £200,000 per annum until March 2008. 4. In 2004, Defra published an independent evaluation of how the Fund had

performed against its key objectives after the first eighteen months of operation. A number of the recommendations arising from this report (see Annex 1) provide useful supporting guidance for setting up the fund and have been incorporated in this report.

Local context 5. The New Forest has had a LEADER+ programme of European funds matched by

national and local funds since 2002, which has been used primarily to finance projects developed through Forest Friendly Farming. The programme runs to 2008 and has many similarities with the Sustainable Development Fund, see Annex 2. The National Park Authority is currently providing a project development role for LEADER+.

6. Recommendation 14 of the 2004 Sustainable Development Fund Review

recommends the exploration of links between the Fund and other funding streams (such as LEADER+) and the possibility of establishing single points of information and expertise. Opportunities for joint working are considered within this report.

Eligibility criteria 7. Defra has produced a short prospectus which sets out the main features of the

Sustainable Development Fund, see Annex 3. These are referred to in the following sections of the report.

2

8. The Fund is open to individuals or organisations from the public, private or

voluntary sectors from within or outside the National Park. All projects must:

• Further national park purposes • Be sustainable • Have support or involvement of communities • Be complementary to key local and national strategies • Not breach state aid rules.

Level of grant

9. The level of grant for projects from the voluntary sector should not normally

exceed 75%. For other organisations, it should not normally exceed 50%. 10. The level of funding for some projects, particularly those involving the agricultural

sector may be affected by State Aid rules which may limit the level of grant offered. Experience gained through the LEADER+ Programme should help to pick up any State Aid issues at an early stage of project development.

Local structures and staffing

11. Defra guidance advises that each National Park Authority must develop

appropriate local procedures and structures to manage the Fund, with bureaucracy kept to a minimum. This should include the setting up of a Grant Advisory Panel to take decisions about the allocation of the Fund and staff support to promote and manage the fund, the cost of which should currently not exceed 10% on average taken over the first two years of the Fund. This will amount to approximately £40,000 over the next two years.

12. Most national parks have dedicated staff to promote and manage the Fund and

some also benefit from a LEADER+ programme as well. All bar one have a full-time Fund Project Officer and most have a part-time administrative assistant. One national park contracts out delivery to an experienced external consultant and one has an arrangement with a local trust. Most parks absorb other costs i.e. accommodation, accounting and publicity within mainstream budgets.

13. The Authority currently provides approximately 1 day per week project development support for New Forest LEADER+ (but the programme requires at least 2 days per week). This role is very similar to that required for the Fund and it is suggested that one full-time officer be employed to provide a shared resource for both funds. The benefits of this approach include cost reductions, a simpler interface with customers (project applicants) and more effective co-ordination of the two programmes.

14. In the future, there may be some scope to broaden out this post to include a

wider community development role. However, with approximately £680,000 available through LEADER+ and the Fund to spend by March 2008, there will need to be dedicated full-time staff support in the short term.

3

Recommendation 1: That a full-time officer be employed to manage the Sustainable Development Fund and provide project development support for both the Fund and LEADER+. Grant Advisory Panel

15. National guidance advises that each park must have a Grant Advisory Panel

which includes those with experience through local and regional organisations and embraces a range of interests such as community, business, environmental, wildlife, agriculture, tourism and recreation interests. It suggests that the Panel should be small, with a main requirement that its members can think laterally and promote innovation. The Authority is expected to provide the Secretariat for the Panel.

16. The role of the Grant Advisory Panel is to make decisions on which projects

should be supported. The Authority has the power to ‘call in’ any applications which are of concern.

17. In most national park authorities the panel consists of between 8 and 10 members, although some have larger panels to provide a greater breadth of interest and broader discussion. Most have at least one national park authority member on the Fund panel, none have more than two. At least two panels have young representatives.

18. The existing LEADER+ Programme has a grant advisory panel (the Local Action Group) which comprises 20 members (2 of which are currently Authority members – Jeremy Heron and John Sanger). This Panel has been meeting regularly for the past 3 years and has a well developed capacity to appraise projects. Its membership covers the main stakeholder groups required for the Fund with the exception of recreation and young people, see Annex 4. The Local Action Group has indicated a potential interest in appraising projects for the Sustainable Development Fund.

19. It is suggested that the Authority explore utilising the Local Action Group to

appraise Fund applications as a first priority. Further work will be required to review stakeholder mix and explore the most effective mechanisms for appraising projects e.g. a Fund sub group.

Recommendation 2: To explore utilising the New Forest LEADER+ Local Action Group as the Grant Advisory Panel for the Sustainable Development Fund. Promotion 20. The Fund provides an exciting new opportunity for both the New Forest and the

National Park Authority and it is suggested that a high profile launch be arranged in the Autumn to ensure that the local community and future applicants are aware of its existence and potential.

4

21. The Sustainable Development Fund Review raised a concern that the promotion

of the Fund alongside and separate from other similar funding opportunities may be confusing to potential applicants. This is likely to be the case with New Forest LEADER+.

22. One way to address this is jointly to promote both schemes and to advise on the

most appropriate scheme at the application phase. This will be easily achievable if project development support for both schemes is provided through one officer. Decisions on which fund to use might depend on project focus, availability of funds etc.

23. The combined resources of the Fund and LEADER+ amount to approximately

£680,000. LEADER+ funding must currently be committed by December 2006 and spent by December 2008. Sustainable Development Fund funding must be spent in the financial year that it is available.

24. It is suggested that a launch be developed which while focusing primarily on the

Fund also highlights the opportunities available through LEADER+. Further advice would need to be sought from our Communications Team to advise on the best way to achieve this.

Recommendation 3: To launch the Sustainable Development Fund in the Autumn 2005. 25. The Sustainable Development Fund Review recommends that the role of

national park authorities and Fund Panels in ‘encouraging appropriate projects, promulgating best practice and disseminating results should be emphasised’. Training on the Fund for Authority and Panel members should be arranged to help them in this role.

Recommendation 4: To provide training for Authority and Panel members on the Sustainable Development Fund. Application process

26. National guidance advises that the application process should keep bureaucracy

to a minimum and encourage engagement and innovation. Applications forms should be simple and easily understood.

27. To speed up processes, applications on smaller grants could be agreed at officer

level with decisions subsequently reported to the Grant Advisory Panel. The 2004 Review suggested that the definition of small projects be up to £5,000.

28. The Review also suggested that stricter project selection and outcome criteria be

developed for larger projects, including the requirement that the proposal should not, in principle, be fundable from any other public source.

5

29. Most national parks have developed their own ‘expression of interest’ and

application forms. To reduce bureaucracy, it is suggested that we do not offer an expression of interest form, but put greater effort into pre-application guidance with eligible applicants going straight to the application phase. The application form should be developed by the end of October, so that applications can be considered prior to the start date of April 2006.

Recommendation 5: To produce an application form by the end of October 2005, to allow applications to be considered prior to the start date of April 2006. Prioritisation and targetting 30. Defra guidance advises that priority should be given to eligible projects that:

• Involve young people and combat social exclusion • Encourage links between urban groups and those resident in the

national park • Demonstrate innovation or best practice • Lever in contributions from other sources • Add value or new dimensions to existing sustainability projects • Have little access to alternative public funding • Bring organisations together to co-operate in tackling problems or

promoting new ideas 31. The Sustainable Development Fund Review further recommended that greater

emphasis be placed on projects which encourage innovation (technical and social) and on the learning processes. It advised that projects should challenge assumptions, understanding, attitudes and behaviour and that more emphasis be placed on rural-urban links and upon the involvement of under-represented groups. Some examples of Sustainable Development Fund funded projects are included in Annex 5.

32. At the park level, the Authority has an opportunity actively to encourage projects

which will help deliver local priorities. Recent work by members to identify priority areas of work, the interim National Park Management Plan and work carried out through Forest Friendly Farming will help inform this process. Further work is required to develop these local priorities and it is suggested that a small task/finish group be set up to aid this process (see Recommendation 7), among other things.

33. While opportunities exist to encourage projects which deliver local priorities, the

2004 Review cautions against ‘skewing the direction of funded projects towards the delivery of specific national park objectives’. Recommendation 15 of the Sustainable Development Fund Review suggests that any review of Sustainable Development Fund objectives beyond 2005 might remove the criterion of furtherance of national park purposes in favour of some general principles of sustainability.

6

34. The existing New Forest LEADER+ fund focuses on projects which support

sustainable land management and/or add value to local produce. There is approximately £280,000 remaining to be spent. It is suggested that while LEADER+ funding is available (until 2008), projects furthering these themes are not prioritised by the Sustainable Development Fund and are directed to LEADER+.

Recommendation 6: That the Sustainable Development Fund does not prioritise themes which are currently being funded under New Forest LEADER+. Monitoring and evaluation 35. Defra guidance suggests that a high level of trust should be placed in the

applicants to carry forward proposed projects. Auditing should be achieved mainly by maintaining close contact with the projects as they develop and a ‘light touch’ regime. Recommendation 16 of the 2004 Review supports local monitoring as part of the learning process.

36. The design of application and claim forms will aid this process and it is important

that performance indicators are agreed at an early stage so that monitoring data can be collected in a simple and logical manner.

37. Each park authority is required to submit an annual report to the Minister of State

for Rural Affairs summarising their performance against performance indicators. The Sustainable Development Fund Review provides further guidance on the structure of this report.

Collaboration with other protected landscapes

38. The 2004 Review recommended that collaboration between protected

landscapes in use of the Fund should be encouraged, as they form an important element of the landscape i.e. in the South East, the 9 AONBs and potentially 2 national parks comprise some 25% of the land surface.

39. The Authority already has good links with other protected landscapes through the

South East Protected Landscape forum. Indeed the forum has recently produced a promotional leaflet which highlights the availability of the Fund in the national parks and AONBs. As a general principle, it is suggested that opportunities for joint working be developed where appropriate.

Integration with mainstream national park activities 40. It is important that the opportunities provided by and lessons learnt from the

Sustainable Development Fund are incorporated into all aspects of the Authority's work.

41. Mechanisms should be developed to ensure that both Authority members and

the Directorates play a role in the implementation of the Fund. Wherever possible the principles of sustainability should be embedded across the Authority.

7

42. It is suggested that a small task/finish group (maximum 6 people) be established

to guide the setting up and operation of the Fund in the New Forest. This should include Authority members, officers and selected stakeholders.

Recommendation 7: To set up a small task/finish group to guide the development and operation of the Sustainable Development fund in the New Forest. Timescale 43. The following timescale is proposed:

September 2005 Set up Sustainable Development Fund task/finish group

End October 2005 Group to advise on and finalise: • Local targeting/criteria • Arrangements to appraise potential projects • Fund literature

Early November 2005 Launch Sustainable Development Fund Mid November 2005 Begin processing applications April 2006 Sustainable Development Fund projects commence

Recommendation 8: To note the proposed Sustainable Development Fund timescale.

8

Annex 1 - Evaluation of the National Parks’ Sustainable Development Fund Summary Report Recommendations – March 2004

Recommendation 1 SDF should be continued within English Parks beyond March 2005.

Recommendation 2 From April 2004 this should be on a three-year rolling basis. This would address the significant difficulties resulting from late announcement of funding extension

Recommendation 3 The existing level of funding per protected landscape is appropriate and should be retained at its present level, i.e. £1.6m p.a. between the eight English Parks.

Recommendation 4 If there is any possibility of securing additional funding, consideration should be given to the extension of SDF to English Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), particularly in light of their higher profile subsequent to CRoW. Not all AONB are equipped to manage SDF however, and arguably some are too small for this to be appropriate. Three options need to be reviewed, by which an enhanced Fund might:

be available in principle to all AONBs1 through a ‘bidding’ process to (or formula allocation from) a central pot, or via earmarked allocation to Regional Development Agencies.

be extended to Conservation Board AONBs only (i.e. Sussex Downs, Cotswolds and Chilterns).

be piloted in one or more area-based schemes involving collaboration between AONBs, or between National Parks and AONBs.

Recommendation 5 Collaboration between protected landscapes in SDF delivery should be in any case be encouraged particularly in regions where they form an important element of the landscape2 and/or collaboration is already good3 or where protected landscapes are contiguous4. This would facilitate coordination of policy, links with Regional Strategies, and targeted implementation and monitoring.

Recommendation 6 The broad principles of existing delivery arrangements should be retained, in particular project selection and local monitoring by an independent panel which also takes an active role in their implementation and a degree of responsibility for and ‘ownership’ of projects and their outcomes. NPAs should continue to reserve the right to ‘call in’ applications and projects in certain circumstances, but should remain at arms length from day-to-day operation of the fund.

Recommendation 7 The role of NPAs and SDF panels in encouraging appropriate projects, promulgating best practice and disseminating the results should be emphasised. SDF teams need encouragement – and time – to develop their role as

1 This would involve an extension of coverage of the English countryside from approximately 10% to over 25% of the land surface. 2 e.g. the SE where 9 AONBs and 2 possible National Parks comprise some 25% of the land surface 3 as in the SW where 12 AONBs and 2 National Parks occupy some 38% of the land surface 4 for example Yorkshire Dales NP with N Pennines, Nidderdale and Forest of Bowland AONBs, which together straddle 3 English Regions

9

enablers and facilitators of sustainability. NPA members could in some parks take a more proactive role in encouraging appropriate projects.

Recommendation 8 The NPA should continue to provide the secretariat for the panel, through the employment of a dedicated SDF Officer. Park level overheads (costs of administration and delivery, including SDF Officer salary) could be allowed to rise from the present 10% to 15% of the fund, provided this results in increased capacity of the team to deliver high quality (and more small) projects and to promulgate project outcomes and disseminate the message of sustainability.

Recommendation 9 In future administration and monitoring of SDF the distinction between large and small projects should be around £5,000 (rather than the present £1,000). The maximum sum could be raised to £50,000. Requirements for match funding, particularly in respect of larger grants, could be clarified.

Recommendation 10 Consideration should be given to requiring rather stricter project selection and outcome criteria for larger projects, including the requirement that the proposal should not in principle be fundable from any other public source.

Recommendation 11 The principle that “A high level of trust must be placed in the ability of applicants to carry forwards proposed projects” should be retained.

Recommendation 12 The present objectives of the fund are entirely appropriate. Criteria for project selection and for evaluation of project outcomes should remain broad and flexible to be adapted to local circumstances. However a greater emphasis needs to be placed on innovation (technical and social) and on the learning processes identified in the prospectus. Projects should challenge assumptions, understanding, attitudes and behaviour. More emphasis could be placed on rural – urban links and upon the involvement in SDF projects of under-represented groups.

Recommendation 13 Innovation, flexibility and accessibility should continue to be the key features of SDF delivery. This would imply retaining the present low level of bureaucracy. The existence of SDF as a distinct funding pot, with the ability to take risks, and to be the first to commit, is of value in providing flexibility especially in small-scale grants.

Recommendation 14 Links between SDF and other funding streams (such as Leader+); in areas where these are well developed, and/or of the possibility of establishing single points of information and expertise, should be further explored.

Recommendation 15 Any review of SDF objectives beyond March 2005 might remove the criterion of furtherance of national park (or AONB) ‘purposes’ in favour of some general objectives of sustainability. This would be a useful precursor to generalising the principles or availability of SDF to the wider countryside.

Recommendation 16 Monitoring at Park level should best be done, as at present, by SDF teams themselves, reporting to local SDF panels. This enhances the learning process and deepens understanding of sustainability and its articulation in practice. An Annual Report to Defra should be required from each Park, based upon a revised Briefing Note [Framework for Monitoring and Evaluation] attached in draft as Appendix i) to the Main Report.

Recommendation 17 The delivery and outcomes of SDF within NPAs should continue to be subject to the scrutiny of an independent agency beyond March 2004. In particular review of programme outcomes and the quality and quantity of project applications

10

needs to be monitored so that decisions can be made each year with respect to the three year rolling programme recommended above.

Recommendation 18 External monitoring should include a brief to facilitate information sharing and collaboration between SDF teams and NPAs in the delivery of the fund, the elaboration of objectives and the examination of outcomes.

Recommendation 19 Consideration should be given to the production, towards the end of 2004-2005, of an illustrated publication (also to be available on the Defra website) promoting the achievements and lessons of SDF in an attractive and accessible way.

Recommendation 20 Wider debate about the aims and achievements of SDF would be valuable. Future activities could include two national dissemination events, in 2004-5, one aimed at National Park (and other protected landscape) staffs, the other aimed at a wider audience of those concerned with sustainability issues.

11

Annex 2 – Comparison between the Sustainable Development Fund and LEADER+

Sustainable Development Fund LEADER+ Objectives Develop and test new ways of

sustainable living in countryside by providing flexible and non-bureaucratic means of funding projects which:

• Explore ways of pursuing principle of sustainability;

• Develop models which can

be more widely applied elsewhere;

• Generate greater awareness

and understanding;

• Involve individuals, businesses, community groups and/or encourage participation of young people;

• Promote social inclusion

To build capacity in local rural communities to encourage them to think about the longer-term potential of their area and to work together to address, in sustainable ways, the needs and issues identified. To support local rural communities in developing and implementing integrated, high quality, innovative strategies for sustainable development to identify new ways of protecting and enhancing the natural and cultural heritage. To share this experience with other groups following the LEADER+ approach in and outside the UK.

Eligibility criteria

Projects must: 1. Further National Park purposes 2. Be sustainable 3. Have the support or

involvement of local communities

4. Be complementary to key local and national strategies

5. Not breach state aid rules

Projects must: 1. Further LEADER+ and FFF

aims 2. Be sustainable 3. Have the support/involvement

of local communities. 4. Secure benefits to target

group 5. Be innovative or new to the

area 6. Not breach state aid rules

Target groups

Individuals or organisations from the public, private or voluntary sectors from within or outside each National Park

Rural community within the original New Forest national park Designation Order boundary (particularly those which have been affected by changes in EU Agricultural policy)

12

Sustainable Development Fund LEADER+ Decision making

Autonomous independent Panel (NPA holds right of ‘call in’ re. eligibility, financial management etc)

Autonomous independent Panel (NFDC holds right of ‘call in’ re. eligibility, financial management etc)

Size of Fund Approximately £200,000 per annum

Approximately £200,000 per annum

Level of grant

Up to 75% of total costs (inc. contributions in kind) for voluntary sector and up to 50% for other bodies.

Up to 100% (50% L+, 50% public sector), but generally up to 50%. State aid rules limit most funding to 15 - 25%, maximum 40% public funds for agricultural projects, 50% for non-agricultural.

Size of grants

Range from £100 to £50,000

Range from £500 to £50,000 (for capital projects) and >£50,000 for revenue projects

Admin 10% ceiling (SDF Review recommends increase to 15%)

15%

Project monitoring

‘Light touch’, reporting to Minister against performance indicators developed by NPA’s.

Quantitative outputs required but L+ does recognise value of ‘soft’ outputs

Timescales

Fund must be spent in the year that it is offered.

Funding must be committed by Dec 2006, and spent by Dec 2008

13

Annex 3 - The Sustainable Development Fund: Prospectus OBJECTIVES Sustainable development is central to the proper conservation of National Parks as it integrates the environment, community and economy. It fits with the statutory purposes and obligations placed on the National Park Authorities. And from its inception Defra has emphasised that sustainable development - sustainability in economic, social and environmental terms - is at the heart of the Government's approach. The Sustainable Development Fund reflects Defra’s objectives of sustainable development, partnership and social inclusion. It will aid the achievement of National Park purposes by encouraging individuals, community groups and businesses to cooperate together to develop practical sustainable solutions to the management of their activities. We want to develop and test new ways of achieving a more sustainable way of living in countryside of great natural beauty and diversity, which enhance and conserve local culture, wildlife, landscape, land use and community. The statutory authority for the Fund is Section 72 of the Environment Act 1995. It will operate within each of the English National Parks, it will also operate within the Broads Authority in the same way. It will be used for projects which: • explore ways of pursuing concurrently the principle of sustainability and of

breaking down barriers that can act as obstacles to sustainability; • develop models for the sustainable management of the countryside that could

be applied more widely in England; • generate greater awareness and understanding of sustainability; • work through individuals, businesses and community groups; and/or • encourage participation of young people; • and promote social inclusion. CRITERIA The Fund is open to individuals or organisations from the public, private or voluntary sectors from within or outside the National Park. They must demonstrate that their project meets the following criteria. Projects will have to: • further National Park purposes; • be sustainable (against the test of economic, social and environmental

sustainability); • have the support or involvement of communities; • be complementary to key local and national strategies, e.g. Local Agenda 21; • not breach state aid rules. The key question is whether a proposed project will change the attitude and behaviour of individuals and communities in ways that enhance understanding of sustainable development and the role of the National Park while promoting cooperation and social inclusion.

14

Priority will be given to eligible projects that: • involve young people and combat social exclusion; • encourage links between urban groups and those resident in the National

Park; • demonstrate innovation or best practice; • lever in contributions from other sources; • add value or new dimensions to existing sustainability projects; and/or • have little access to alternative public funding; and/or • bring organisations together to cooperate in tackling problems or promoting

new ideas.

PROCEDURES AND STRUCTURES National Park Authorities are being asked to develop appropriate local procedures and structures. Diversity will help identify best practice for encouraging innovation and high levels of participation by Park communities. Bureaucracy should be kept to a minimum. A small Sustainable Development Fund Grant Advisory Panel should be established in each Park to take decisions about allocation of the fund. Each Park should consider whether to appoint a Sustainable Development Officer to promote and manage the fund.

GRANTS The level of grant support for the voluntary sector will not normally exceed 75%. For other organisations it will not normally exceed 50%. Up to 100% will be available in exceptional circumstances and in most cases this will require contribution in kind such as volunteer time or loan of equipment, premises, land etc. When making grant applications, applicants will be expected to explore complementary grant sources to give added value to the Sustainable Development Fund.

THE GRANT ADVISORY PANEL The Grant Advisory Panel in each Park may include those with experience through local and regional organisations and embrace a range of interests such as community, business, environmental, wildlife, agriculture, tourism and recreational interests. However the panel should be small and the main requirement is that its members can think laterally and promote innovation. The National Park Authority will provide the secretariat for this Panel. The Panels must develop working methods which allow a speedy response to requests for grants. They might delegate responsibility or encourage members to take a personal interest in projects. Recipients should be informed within 7 days of the grant being agreed.

15

Whilst the Panels will make decisions on the applications, the National Park Authority will have the power to “call in" any applications which does not meet the eligibility criteria is clearly conflict with National Park purposes, or where there is a clear risk of financial mismanagement of the project. Those applications “called in” will then be considered by the National Park Authority itself and a recommendation made to the Minister of State for Rural Affairs whose decision shall be final. The aim will be to reduce bureaucracy to a minimum and to encourage engagement and innovation. Application forms will have a simple and easily understood design. A high level of trust must be placed in the ability of applicants to carry forward proposed projects. Auditing will be achieved mainly by maintaining close contact with the projects as they develop and a "light touch" regime. To speed the process applications on the smaller grants (perhaps up to £1,000) will be put through to the Sustainable Development Officer, with these decisions being reported subsequently to the Panel. It is expected that a high proportion of grants will be relatively small in order to assist a large number of groups.

A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER A dedicated officer to promote and manage the project will normally be necessary and the Fund can be used to establish this post. Staff, administration and promotion costs should not exceed 10% on average taken over the first two years of the Fund. It is not only accepted but desirable that expenditure on these heads may be higher in the first year when the programme is being promoted and applications nurtured.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION Each Park Authority and the Broads Authority will be required to submit to the Minister of State for Rural Affairs and copy to the Countryside Agency, an annual report summarising their performance against the performance indicators. It has been made clear that this must be a very light touch regime. Performance indicators to be measured will focus primarily on output measures - has it worked! : Output measures will answer such questions as: • what have been the social, economic and environmental impacts on

communities and individuals – and what added value has the scheme secured?

• has the Fund or projects sparked activity that would not have otherwise occurred?

• how effectively have the local objectives set for the Fund by the National Parks been achieved?

• do the different approaches taken by each National Park affect the success of the Fund in each area?

• what implications are there for replication elsewhere? • does the Fund enable us to learn lessons from its successes and failures? • to what extent are both the successful and unsuccessful projects innovative? • what proportion of projects are innovative adaptations of existing approaches

to meet changing needs?

16

• how many sustainable management models have been developed? • how effectively has sustainable living been promoted and what has been the

result? • how effectively have the National Park Projects been in facilitating the

achievement of statutory purposes of conservation and understanding? Input measures as follows will also be considered: • the number of partnerships involved and created as a result of the Fund; • the number of community groups directly involved in projects; • the number of training/awareness raising sessions on sustainability and the

Fund to voluntary organisations, community groups and others; • the percentage of projects which have retained community participation after

year one, two and three, including those projects led by community groups, and the number of projects still operational after the three year programme, or where they are not operating because they have fulfilled their objective;

• the number of partners involved in the Fund, which are still involved at the end of year one, two and three.

• the amount of match-funding drawn down by the Fund EXTERNAL EVALUATION These simple reports will aid us in evaluating the overall impact of the Fund and will also help dissemination of the lessons learnt from the projects. National Park Authorities will be encouraged to promote the results to a wider rural audience. In addition, we will ask the Countryside Agency to undertake low key evaluation of the projects. We will ask the Agency to make a first report at the end of 18 months. A LEARNING PROGRAMME The Minister of State for Rural Affairs is keen to promote innovative thinking through the operation of the Fund and to see how it can help to provoke new ides or good practice which may inform the wider work of bodies active in the National Parks and more widely in rural communities. He intends to host a seminar early in 2003 to take stock of progress with National Park Officers, Sustainable Development Officers and key partners including the Countryside agency and English Nature.

17

Annex 4 - Composition of New Forest LEADER+ Local Action Group

Number of Stakeholders Number % Public Sector 8 40% Private Sector 4 20% Voluntary Sector 8 40% TOTAL 20 100% Representation of Stakeholder Groups Number % Community 2 10% Commoning 3 15% Economic Development 2 10% Education 1 5% Farming 2 10% Forestry/Woodland Management 1 5% Landscape 1 5% Nature Conservation 2 10% Producers & Growers 2 10% Producers / Small Retailers 1 5% Business Support 1 5% Tourism attractions/hotels, B&B's etc 2 10% TOTAL 20 100%

18

Annex 5 – Sustainable Development Fund Review - Case studies of Best Practice Fell Farming Traineeships The valued "wild" landscapes of our national parks (and indeed most of our uplands) are largely a by-product of the way that the land has been managed by past generations of farmers and commoners. As farm incomes fall, young people move off the land and those that remain form an ageing farming community; in the meantime agricultural colleges concentrate on "efficient" farming skills. All this conspires to threaten traditional craft skills that still shape the landscape. Some agricultural training schemes try to address this problem, but they are patchy and tend not to be targeted on particular skills that may be especially important in local areas, and they seldom involve the local people who possess these skills (such as the remaining farmers) as the ‘trainers’. Several national parks have their own apprenticeship schemes for future farm employees but the particular skills of landscape maintenance that these preserve are not the same as the broad understanding and competence (sometimes difficult to specify precisely) which allows the farmer to earn a living off the land. The Fell Farming Traineeships scheme in the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales is a 12 month pilot scheme that pays the wages of eight local trainees (and a coordinator) who are based with local farmers who undertake to teach them the ‘tools of the trade’. This means that the training, the skills, and the benefits are firmly rooted in the local community. The costs are comparable with other schemes which pay the wages of trainees (e.g. apprenticeships). Moor Skills Survey An SDF grant to West Devon Business Information Point (Okehampton) has supported a study of the need for traditional skills training to ensure that Dartmoor farming methods are not lost to future generations. The survey has attempted to identify the key skills (swaling, walling, hedging, thatching, etc), who has them (many will be farmers), and what need or demand exists for them. Some interesting data has already emerged – for example, over three-quarters of all those surveyed were interested in further training, and although the highest demand is for traditional Moorland skills, many were also interested in more ‘technical’ topics including Moorland species identification (43%). A second stage will be to train those with the skills so that they can pass them on to others. In addition to ensuring that valued skills survive, this could provide income to farm-based trainers. It is hoped that this project will create new jobs (for the younger generation) by creating an accredited pool of skilled labour. It will be important to identify a way of certificating the training to ensure high standards.

19

SW Wood Fuels Ltd. SDF made a contribution towards the first year start-up costs of wages & salaries, dissemination and marketing activities of SW Wood Fuels Ltd. SW Wood Fuels is a not-for profit trust with around 100 members aiming to link producers and users of wood chip and other biomass fuels and to provide practical support. Woodland owners and managers can join the company for an annual fee (of £5 - £20) and in return can hire the wood-chipper (not brought specifically from SDF funds, which are rather a general subsidy to first year running costs). SW Wood Fuels will advise on woodchip production and storage and is involved in a number of other activities including education and promotion. Wood chip heating is not new technology (it is commonplace in Austria where boilers are manufactured and from whom they are presently imported), however it is new to Exmoor (and to most of the UK). It could make a major contribution in terms of renewable energy (and reducing CO2 production) and in providing a marker for smallwoods (including coppice) and timber waste – which is produced locally. Automatic Wood Heating Installations SDF has co-funded (with Clear Skies) feasibility studies for wood-chip boiler installation at three Exmoor centres including the Field Studies Council’s Nettlecombe Court centre and the Calvert Trust. The firm is also involved in marketing wood pellet burners. These are presently imported from Finland, but they are trying to market a small-scale pellet maker, which could provide a use for sawdust that is currently wasted. Bioflame; Clean burn technology Bioflame are a local company, with premises on a broiler farm inside the national park. They have developed a prototype mobile gasifier (like a clean burn incinerator) that can potentially burn a range of fuels from wood waste even to dried sewage sludge! There is an option to generate electricity from the steam produced. The SDF grant has paid for emissions testing equipment – needed to secure a Defra license before marketing - for a prototype mobile gasifier where the waste burnt generates energy. Matthias Grundmann, the Technical Director says, ”we would have struggled like anything” without SDF help, which “has really given us a starting block to push off”. The gasifier was originally intended for old tyres, but these now have a market as a source of high quality carbon. It has already been marketed outside the UK for a range of different wastes including coffee wastes (machines have been exported to Costa Rica). It is hoped that once licensed for the UK, there will be direct marketing to farms within the National Park. This will provide a way of local incineration of waste, generating energy and (because wood chip is used as a combustion starter) stimulating woodland management at the same time.

20

North Craven Compost SDF funding provided a compost shredder & ancillary equipment for a composting operation at ‘Growing with Grace’, an organic nursery and food supply co-operative in Clapham. The support provides a much-needed boost for an excellent local initiative recycling waste, generating jobs and promoting recycling. Household green waste from North Craven is composted and used at the nursery to grow organic produce in a complex of old greenhouses. The produce is the sold from the ‘on farm’ shop and via veggie and fruit box deliveries. These are packed in the shed for which they very much need a cold space (at the moment they are using the back of a lorry). They are already supplying some food to local schools and hospitals. A very good example of partnership initiative between the statutory and non-statutory bodies, with the district council providing collection and transport facilities for the household green waste within 100 mile radius. The project promotes sustainable agriculture, local waste recycling and local product distribution. Waterproof clothing and equipment for health walks Two small SDF grants have enabled the Park Ranger Service to purchase waterproof clothing, rucksacks and mobile phones for adults and children with physical handicaps or learning difficulties, on ranger-led walks and activities. The equipment has already proved their worth in making countryside activity less daunting for otherwise excluded groups from surrounding towns. Glossopdale Furniture Project and Whitby Furniture Store The Glossopdale Furniture Project and the Whitby Furniture Store are similar projects run by local groups who collect unwanted furniture (in Whitby they also collect electrical goods and scrap metal) all of which would probably end up in landfill sites. Glossopdale is outside the Peak District National Park, but old furniture is collected from across the whole of High Peak. Matched funding is provided by Derbyshire County Council. The Whitby scheme is co-funded by Scarborough Borough Council and collects from areas within the North York Moors National Park as well as local towns. In both schemes, SDF funding helped the collection side of the operation. In Whitby the Fund paid for a full time driver/labourer for six months to work in the Furniture Store. In Glossopdale, items collected are either restored in the scheme’s workshops, or the timber is reclaimed and new items – such as bookcases and planters – are constructed. Some of this restored furniture is made available to people on income support who are setting up new homes. Other items are sold commercially and the income used to help sustain the enterprise. The project employs people who were previously out of work, as well as providing work experience for volunteers and placements for young people on community service orders. Some youngsters who were sent to the workshops as part of their sentence now come back willingly as volunteers! In Whitby the scheme provides training opportunities to community groups, volunteers and local people in the reconditioning of the goods. Over 60 electrical item and 615 large items of furniture have been passed on local families and individuals. Along with 90 tons of scrap metal all these items have diverted significant amount of potential waste away from landfill.

21

Both schemes have saved on waste and landfill, made furniture and other goods available free or at low cost to people in need; and they provide local jobs for people who would otherwise be employed. Valued skills have been retained, disadvantaged groups included and enabled. Both projects will continue beyond SDF funding and could be replicated elsewhere. These projects score highly against all the criteria of sustainable development; contributing to environmental goals through recycling and re-use; supporting the local economy and community, by creating jobs and providing opportunities to excluded individuals; and illustrating to a wide audience of customers and beneficiaries what sustainability can mean in practice. Border Reiver Shop Extension, Otterburn The Border Reiver shop and café in Otterburn is the only shop for many miles that sells everyday goods. Its continued existence means the retention of an important meeting place for the Redesdale communities, saves long trips to the supermarket in Newcastle, provides jobs for 10 local people, provides affordable meals in the café, and acts as an outlet for a number of local producers. The business is privately owned, but employees have a major stake in its success through a staff incentive scheme As part of a major extension to the premises SDF funds have covered the cost of solar panels (which should provide at least 50% of hot water requirements), loft insulation, energy efficient lighting and the installation of bat boxes. These last are important because the nearby bat roost in a derelict barn may be lost in the next few years. When complete the extended shop area will include interpretive panels including not only information about the surrounding area, but also explanation of how the building has been rendered more environmentally friendly through SDF funding. Cooperative buy-out of the Old Crown Hesket Newmarket The Old Crown pub at Hesket Newmarket has been described as “one of Lake District’s best known pubs’, famous amongst walkers, climbers and cyclists. Voted Pub of the Year by CAMRA’s Solway branch two years running, it is closely linked to the Hesket Newmarket Brewery Ltd. The Brewery was bought by the villagers and supporters as a community co-operative in 1999, long before SDF. In 2003, the pub was put up for sale and was in danger of being sold to a large brewery. In order to keep this vital resource and amenity to the village, the local community formed another cooperative of over 100 people to buy the pub. SDF funding has helped them buy the Old Crown – the first such pub in Britain to be owned and run by a cooperative. The purchase will also help to safeguard the future of the Hesket Newmarket Brewery, for which the Old Crown is the main customer. There is excellent community involvement and ownership of the project, which will protect local jobs and the brewery (also a co-operative) for the foreseeable future. The project helps retain an important building in traditional use and promotes wealth creation by retaining income within the community. Major challenges include making the cooperative work successfully.

22

Broadland Reed and Sedge Harvesting Rejuvenation The Broads landscape is the product of human intervention; it will only be sustained if appropriate land management techniques continue to be implemented. Five years ago it appeared the reed cutting industry was in terminal decline. Local thatchers were increasingly learning to rely on reed imported from Poland or Turkey, many reed cutters were reaching retirement age and the economics of the industry made it unattractive to younger people. Isolation also meant reed cutters did not know – or support - one another, and they sometimes were unable to negotiate favourable rates with the owners of the marshes on which they worked. An SDF grant has enabled the purchase of new cutting and harvesting machinery, the basis for the establishment of a new 12 strong Reed and Sedge Cutters Association and the cost of training and administration. The reed cutters have been re-equipped, re-organised and reassured. Younger people are starting to see that there could be a future for them in this line of work. The reed cutters will invest a proportion of their income into the Association, and this money will be used to buy yet more reed cutters etc in five years time. Dormice project This small grant has enabled Tina Donnelly (a retired teacher) to convert her private garden greenhouse to a dormouse breeding unit. She is a dedicated dormouse enthusiast and has been involved for some years in erecting and monitoring more than 200 dormice nestboxes in Exmoor National Park. The cages have enabled a step change in her work for dormice, which are selectively released to suitable sites some locally. The work is being done under the supervision of the National Park’s ecologist and in collaboration with Paignton Zoo and with national experts on dormice. Tina keeps extensive logs in line with English Nature Species Recovery Programme. The project of necessity has no community involvement but Tina is undergoing police vetting so that schoolchildren can visit, enabling links with education. As a highly focused single-species protection endeavour the project would be difficult to replicate but the SDF funding is money well spent. As well as helping to conserve an endangered species there will be educational benefits for local children, and wider publicity to the links between the ‘wild’ and the ‘captive’ (the national park and the zoo) can show how the work of each complements the other. Meadow Mania Funds a development consultancy to identify partners, work up a business plan, funding and detailed work programme for a project to promote Dales visits based around the hay meadows together with seed production to restore degraded meadows. Moor Trees Pays for a coordinator who manages a project similar to the Esk Valley Juniper projects, based on the efforts of a group of volunteers who collect the seed from native Dartmoor woodlands, plant them out in small nurseries, then plant the saplings out to create new areas of native woodland. The SDF grant has provided a 3 months gap funding to keep the group going pending the outcome of a bid for 2 full years funding from another source.

23

The Endeavour Car Club SDF has provided the initial set up costs needed for a "community car share club" that will serve Whitby, surrounding coastal villages and the communities of Eskdale. The car club vehicles will be leased by Good Neighbours Community Transport and positioned within walking distance (or a short bus/train ride) from member's homes. The cars are booked using the telephone or internet then accessed using smart card, PIN number and mobile phone technology. An on board computer terminal keeps track of the time on hire and miles driven and then bills members monthly. Carplus UK, the umbrella organisation for all car clubs in the UK has given practical support (5 hours a week) and access to equipment needed. The plan is for the club to be financially self sufficient in 25 months, initially with three cars in year 1 to cover Whitby town and all villages within 260 km2. Environmental benefits include fewer private cars bought and used, less traffic, congestion, and pollution. Social benefits in rural areas include occasional access to a car for those who don't own a vehicle, thus improving access to facilities and reducing the economic and social isolation. However this project has had a delayed start and is awaiting other funding. Econoplas: Sustainable drainage from waste plastic “Aquadyne” is a unique drainage material from waste (household and industrial) plastics. It was originally developed by an inventive farmer now Director of ‘Econoplas Ltd’ in a barn on his farm inside the national park, as a way of disposing of his own plastic refuse. After shredding, the plastic rubbed between plates, with frictional heat resulting in partial meltdown producing pellets which stick together into a porous ‘rice cake’. This is formed into rigid bricks or slabs through which water will drain, and which will also conduct water by capillary action. ‘Aquadyne’ claims a number of advantages compared to plastic pipe and- gravel. For example, it is not affected by movement, and it will take large loads without collapse so it can be used under roadways (and could be used under porous concrete for motorway drainage). Its capillarity means that it will also take water upward as well as downward so it has advantages under amenity turf. Almost any plastic can be used, without the need for sorting or cleaning. This provides a use for refuse that would otherwise have gone to landfill, or if recyclable, might be shipped overseas for sorting and cleaning in cheap labour economies. Scaling up production meant that Econoplas required relocation to proper factory/warehousing facilities. The SDF grant has paid for 10 months rental of manufacturing start-up workspace in a Scarborough industrial estate, outside the Park, which now employs 3 other full-time workers. There are clear potential environmental benefits, although issues of subsoil clogging, and biodegradation have yet to be conclusively settled. Because production is not ‘high tech’, it can in principle be sourced (as well as used) locally. However current marketing strategy is to go for high value amenity applications such as golf course greens. At £2.95/ linear metre (£10,000/ha), Aquadyne has already put itself beyond the reach of local community groups and clubs. Longer-term projects include developing a version for use as oil containment booms. The ultimate environmental and social benefits may depend on the marketing strategy adopted once patents have been granted.

24

Dunster Tithe Barn Community Centre SDF funding has helped towards professional fees for preparation of HLF application for the repair and community use of a neglected building of great historic and architectural importance. The project has wide and dedicated community involvement - Dunster village has an excellent track record in purchasing and maintaining historic spaces for community and public use. The Tithe Barn is adjacent to and would form a whole with the public gardens which were landscaped after the land was saved from development 25 years ago through purchase by the village from the National Trust which had put it up for public sale. This will only work if community manages to secure transfer of ownership from the Crown estates, which have neglected this lovely place. There is a good prospect of funds to lever in HLF funding. Green design is not yet part of the design but could be part of the architect’s brief and this would add to the sustainability benefits in the repair and reuse of a locally important historic economic building. Rydal Hall Garden Restoration Project Funds the installation of interpretation boards in the education centre and panels in the grounds detailing the hall’s examples of renewable energy (Hydro Power) and sustainable estate management including the repair and replanted garden which will produce organic produce for the Hall, Youth Centre and Café. Helmsley Walled Garden Restoration Scheme Will support the National Heritage collection of vines, restore historic glass houses and out buildings, provide horticultural therapy, training & education facilities and attract visitors which will benefit other local businesses. South Tawton Church House feasibility study Has paid for architectural and historical/archaeological surveys to identify the important features of a building which has been allowed to fall into disrepair by the Church Commissioners, and to produce a management plan (as a precursor to a HLF application) to show how a restored Church house could be maintained as a self-supporting community facility.

25