Place: Cumbria

The local inquiry in Cumbria sought to identify where there are gaps in farm support for specific communities or groups, and where investigations, activities and consensus align and diverge. Such an analysis will provide a better steer on how to use future funds to avoid repetition and gaps, as well as to support innovation and make a positive difference in the uplands.

Advice and relationship management for Cumbrian upland farming post-Brexit

Prof. Lois Mansfield, University of Cumbria

Context for inquiry

The Cumbrian uplands are a product of those that have lived, worked and appreciated them for centuries. They are enjoyed by over 19 million visitors a year. Supporting a resilient, viable hill farming sector will provide not only high-quality food, but a range of public goods and services from which the whole of society benefits. Valuing hill farming values our uplands.

Upland farming businesses in the UK have been, and continue to be, some of the most marginal and fragile in terms of financial sustainability and resilience. However, beyond food production, these farms provide a wide range of public goods and ecosystem services as well as underpinning social and economic activity in sparsely populated, rural areas.

With the UK’s exit from the EU imminent, an opportunity has presented itself to reshape farm support in line with developing government policy. In response, several initiatives and networks have been set up in Cumbria, alongside operating projects to investigate and support the future of upland farming in the county post Brexit. They draw on a long experience of innovation, project development and programme operation spanning over forty years in the county.

Emphasis has been placed on the shift towards payments for natural capital, public goods and ecosystem services to fit government agendas. These changes would see significant changes in farming practices and the role of farmers within the landscape, but are not the panacea for all ills; funds will be limited, not all businesses will fit the criteria. Nevertheless, those businesses which may fall ‘outside’ the proposed funding envelope play a crucial role in the greater social and economic fabric of upland Cumbria, its communities, businesses and landscapes through its production of the county’s unique cultural capital. The ability to fund parts and not the whole could lead to a mosaic of extensive and intensively farmed landscapes that moves away from that desired by society as a whole, and which will threaten the Government’s own vision of uplands:

The upland way of life, the unique food produced, and the great art that these landscapes have inspired attract visitors from around the world. The complexity presented by contemporary and developing initiatives, the multiple stakeholders and their diverse ways of working make it difficult to ascertain whether these types of farm support will address the fundamental continuation of the upland sector in Cumbria. It is hard to define where they complement each other to create greater synergies or where they conflict, undermining and eroding any positives achieved. If UK society wishes to benefit from these additional values, which upland farming brings along with its productive capacity for future food security, then it is imperative to continue to provide appropriate support to ensure business viability.

Methodology

This research was conducted through semistructured interviews in two stages:

• Stage one focused on understanding the current farm support provision made available by the stakeholders interviewed.
• Stage two employed an open dialogue focusing on three key issues for upland farm support to derive the gap analysis:

1. What needs rectifying now?

2. How do farming communities need to change in the future?

3. What activities are organisations considering offering in the future?

In this research the initiatives were explored through the application of a ‘capitals’ approach. Capital is a term used by economists to explore the assets a business has available either as an input into or, as an output of, that operation. This research reviewed farm support initiatives against the following capitals: natural or environmental; physical; human; financial; social and cultural. This was to ensure that a range of benefit and value was considered, from the way farming produces landscape for tourism to direct employment.

Support provided by existing initiatives

Thirty-three independent initiatives were explored (excluding Basic Payment Scheme) of which twenty-four were specifically designed to support hill farming. With some, the funding just happens to be going into hill farms (e.g. Countryside Stewardship) as it is a national scheme with options suiting the hill farm system , whilst others have focussed parts for hill farms, such as the Westmorland Dales HLF project.

Overall support constitutes money as well as inkind advice and guidance, the two should go hand in hand. The types of support were varied, covering: maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity; water management; support for cultural landscapes, processes and structures; developing relationships; advocacy; finance and advice.

There is a general pattern that government sponsored schemes focused on natural capital, whereas NGOs and charities look to support the sector more broadly through complex configurations of capital, indicative of more holistic and integrated provision. In fact, the latter groupings are much less interested in natural capital, as in effect, this is already catered for and thus their job, it could be argued, is to support the other capital needs of hill farming which have not been addressed by government policy/funding. It is unlikely this is by design, rather seeing a need/gap and filling it. In other words, these organisations have not set out to specifically plug capital gaps, their approach is a reaction rather than a proactive decision.

Hill farm support is provided by a range of organisations from government agencies, to NGOs to charities. Size of operations varied considerably, some are dominated by farmer membership, others are partnerships and alliances of different land management stakeholder organisations. For example, the Federation of Cumbria Commoners has 700 members and the Farmers Network 1,123. In contrast, the National Trust now has over 5 million members and the Lake District Partnership has over 20 member organisations. Some have many employees, others very few; although this is not necessarily dependant on spend.

It is clear where the bulk of the finance comes from for hill farming, i.e. government schemes, which focus strongly on biodiversity, water management and rural development (read productivity and growth) — in line with the current European funding regime. A small percentage is used to cover all the other areas which address a range of challenges not tackled by government funding, but essential to building business resilience in hill farming e.g. training vouchers. Consequently, natural capital is the greatest asset supported financially, followed by physical capital. Funding is magnitudes lower for human, social and cultural capital.

The geographical spread is varied; from those schemes open to all in Cumbria (e.g. Countryside Stewardship), to those focused on land ownership patterns (e.g. National Trust) or some with very focused geographies (e.g. Westmorland Dales Heritage Lottery Fund). Initiatives vary from one year to twenty, shorter schemes are typically those run by local organisations filling gaps identified to help farm businesses and farm families to develop resilience.

Gap analysis of existing support initiatives

The second half of the research conducted a gap analysis of hill farming support going forward. The three questions generated a great deal of discussion, however, the support organisations interviewed for this project demonstrated a remarkable level of consistency in their views.

Firstly, and with respect to gaps which need addressing currently, the following were identified: flaws within systems & processes; lack of advice; more business support; more Continuing Professional Development (CPD); the negative effects of power relations; and gaps in money and grants.

The second question explored what farming communities needed to change to fit the new agenda coming post-Brexit. This focused on high quality guidance providing appropriate knowledge that can help them make the right decisions for their business, whether it be diversification or even withdrawal from farming altogether.

Finally, interviewees talked about the types of support they are considering developing. Whilst for some this was almost impossible given the current political vacuum, others spoke in relation to that described in the Agriculture Bill and some forms of Environmental Land Management Schemes and the Shared Prosperity Fund; others accepted there would be a continued need for much of the support they currently provided. The types of support talked about included: the nature of an advisory service; integrated funding; relationship management, and they were looking for the ability of offer localised services fitting local needs.

Recommendations

Two main themes which came up over again, were the provision of a good quality, relevant advisory service and better relationship management. Going forward there are two main recommendations from this local inquiry:

1. The provision of a local advisory service

The research suggests that a well-structured flexible advisory service would be appropriate for hill farming resilience and growth in Cumbria post Brexit. To include:

• Advisory staff who offer integrated advice to a suite of farm businesses on a 1:1 basis to give continuity long term.
• Knowledge provision covering (not exclusively): diversification, business planning, public goods, cultural/social values, environmental management, working with visitors and the public, transition management & change, tourism, innovation and new markets, funding options.
• CPD skills offer: IT, farm accounts, 10-year business planning, ELMS, working with the public, additional qualifications.
• Flexible delivery style suited to farmers using a range of formats to include: facilitation of groups, farm visits, mentoring, 1:1 advice, talks, guest lectures, short training courses which are localised across the county to limit travel times.
• Application of localism: appropriate traditional skills to the area, advisors drawn from local/ regional expertise to engender trust; operates at a sub catchment to generate collaboration and fit the Environmental Land Management Scheme agenda.
• Exit & Entry Management: new entrant publicity & CPD programme, succession planning, brokerage to set up a share farming system, Brexit denial support, cessation of farming opportunity planning.

The need for a good quality relevant advisory service sits well with the broader strategic drivers of the forthcoming Agriculture Act and with those of the Local Industrial Strategy for Cumbria and the related Cumbria Rural & Visitor Economy Growth Plan (CRVEGP). This plan builds on their initial publication of the Strategic Plan for Cumbria (2014). The CRVEGP states (p7): ‘The crucial role of agriculture in continuing to shape and manage the natural environment of Cumbria also cannot be underestimated, nor the role of farming and farmers in providing critical social glue in our rural areas’.

2. Relationship management

The second area in need of development to support hill farming post-Brexit is in improving relationship management. Tackling each of these areas requires different approaches and support. Part of this process will be to support organisations that provide advocacy for many voices rather than just one. There are seven areas to consider here:

• Visitors and the public — farmer level customer engagement training, better quality interpretation in visitor centres.
• Environmental organisations — training for conservation officers to understand hill farm management, systems and practices.
• The RPA — continuity of case officers, speeding up claims and query responses.
• Landlords — review of agricultural tenancy structures, systems and legislation. Clearer agreements on what each party expects with built in support. Provision of advocacy, arbitration and conciliation services.
• The farm family — farm business planning is made intergenerational using a framework such as the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach.
• The neighbours — developing collaborative working and trust through facilitation for area payments, shared challenges to solve (e.g. natural flood management systems) and community renewables provision.
• Influencers — facilitating understanding of the key influencers, e.g. National Park authorities, WHS, utility companies, charities, journalists and environmental campaigners, and their aims and objectives.

Relationship management is probably one of the most complex and difficult areas to tackle in broader land resource management but is actually one of the most essential. Without compromise, common vision and agreement it is almost impossible to achieve the goals and objectives of any stakeholder which relies on shared property resources.

A detailed report of the Cumbria locally led inquiry is available at www.bit.ly/ ffccCumbria.

Reflection on the Cumbria locally led inquiry

Josie Warden, Food, Farming and Countryside Commission

Cumbria is the third largest county in England, and largely rural. Its population of half a million is dwarfed by tens of millions of visitors each year, many of them heading to the iconic Lake District. Recently inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage site for its cultural landscape, the area is subject to intense debates about the future of upland farming and the impacts of potential policy changes on local communities, farming and non-farming. And the Lake District is only one part of Cumbria’s story. A range of landscapes and challenges are found across the county, from difficulties with transport and affordable housing, to an ageing population, to areas of severe deprivation.

In July 2018 we spoke to local stakeholders across farming, conservation, local government and community engagement, from Barrow-in-Furness to Penrith, to look at the best way to approach the Commission’s inquiry in the county.

Whilst the Lake District and its uplands do not constitute or reflect the needs of the entire county, we felt that, within the remit of this Commission, the challenges facing farmers and communities within that region of the county exemplify the difficult discussions and decisions which are taking place in the sector at present. As a result, it was agreed with stakeholders that the uplands would be the focus of the Cumbria work. The Commission’s UK bicycle tour, however, visited other parts of the county and explored the issues they are facing.

The future of the uplands

There is significant activity from government, industry and the third sector taking place in the county, particularly centred on the uplands. As a result, many of the organisations we spoke to were feeling overwhelmed by consultation and activities. So much so, that whilst organisations were supportive of the Commission focusing on the county, they had little time to support the work. They told us that rather than convening our own network we should instead work in partnership with existing initiatives. This insight set the direction for the Cumbrian work. What emerged from discussions was the need for an inquiry which made sense of the existing work taking place in the county, rather than something which sought to add another layer to it.

Prof. Lois Mansfield at the University of Cumbria designed and undertook research to answer this challenge. The work which is outlined here highlights the need for more joined up and holistic approaches to farm support in the county. In times of change many organisations seek to provide support and resources, but without an overall account of what is taking place, duplication or gaps in support emerge. For farmers and communities this multi-initiative landscape can be complex and hard to navigate. This research identifies two needs which are going unfulfilled by existing farm support initiatives and proposes recommendations for addressing them that will provide helpful background to organisations, both local and national, who wish to support farmers and communities.

This local inquiry shows that, rather than adding in new initiatives, sometimes the best intervention is one which takes stock of what is already going on, and asks where the needs and gaps are. The University, and Prof. Mansfield, were perfectly placed to lead on this work. We hope that it proves useful to local and national organisations who work with farmers and farming communities in the Cumbria uplands.