WARNING - By their nature, text files cannot include scanned images and tables. The process of converting documents to text only, can cause formatting changes and misinterpretation of the contents can sometimes result. Wherever possible you should refer to the pdf version of this document. CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY Paper 3 10/02/06 CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY FOR DECISION Title: Integrated Land Management Strategy: Emerging Policies Prepared by: Fiona Newcombe, Head of Land Management Will Boyd-Wallis, Senior Land Management Officer Purpose The purpose of this paper is to agree emerging policies for the integrated land management strategy. Recommendations Board is asked to endorse the following: a) the definition of public benefits; b) the vision for how the public sector can help land managers deliver enhanced public benefits; c) the proposals for determining payment rates for land managers; d) the design of funding mechanisms for public benefits; e) the locational targeting of support for the delivery of public benefits; and f) the proposals for advice, training, monitoring and feedback. Executive Summary Much work has been undertaken developing on integrated land management and this has revealed some issues, where leadership on policy direction is required by the CNPA. We are currently developing an action plan for delivering the integrated land management strategy. The timing is now right to agree the policies summarised in this paper. This will enable us to provide leadership and direction in the development of the action plan. The policies proposed in this paper have been developed through discussions with staff, Board members, land managers, public agencies and other partners. Integrated Land Management: Emerging Policies Background 1. Board previously agreed an Integrated Land Management Strategy Framework. This set out the role of the CNPA in working with partner agencies, land managers and stakeholders towards integrated land management. This was subsequently identified as a priority for action in the draft National Park Plan. Appendix 1 gives more information about the integrated land management strategy framework, and the work undertaken to date. 2. A detailed action plan for the delivery of integrated land management will be completed in collaboration with partners over the next few months, as part of the Park Plan Priority for Action process. The action plan will have clear targets and timescales. 3. Work to date on integrated land management has revealed some issues with a variety of possible interpretations, for example the definition of public benefits. Therefore, policies on these key issues are proposed for Board’s approval. This will enable us to provide leadership and direction in the development of the action plan. The Definition of Public Benefits 4. There has been academic debate over the definition of public benefits. However, there have been very few practical examples of their definition in practical use. In our discussions it has become apparent that a broad definition would be helpful, to promote understanding of what we wish to achieve, and its scope and limits. 5. We propose that public benefits in the Cairngorms are defined as: Identifiable outcomes from the activity of land managers that have a value for society. ‘Society’ may be local, national or international. The ‘value’ may be cultural, economic, environmental, social or spiritual. The emphasis on ‘activity’ is to exclude features that may be present without the activity of land managers, such as lochs and mountains. Identifiable outcomes are an essential part of defining public benefits, as this means that they can be easily understood and discussed. 6. There is no assumption that all the public benefits in the Cairngorms will be delivered by public support. Many are and will continue to be delivered through private activity, investment and support. The challenge for the public sector is twofold: a) to acknowledge and appreciate the delivery of public benefits by private sector activity. We also need to ensure that there is a level playing field to avoid the disenfranchment that may occur if a land manager willingly provides public benefits with no public support while his or her neighbours getting paid for doing the same thing; and b) to identify where private investment and activity is not delivering priority public benefits. Where this is the case, to implement public sector support to deliver priority public benefits. Recommendation 7. Board is asked to endorse the definition of public benefits. Vision for How the Public Sector Can Help Land Managers Deliver Public Benefits in the CNP 8. After informal discussion with several partners, we have developed a draft vision on the support given by the public sector to help land managers deliver public benefits in the CNP. It sets out how to deliver the public benefits. Public sector support could include financial payments, regulation, the provision of advice, support for and provision of training and the provision of information. 9. Our vision is for a CNP where land managers run private businesses that also produce public benefits, for which they are supported. Land managers are more than just park rangers or nature reserve managers, and undertake management that delivers public benefits and the special qualities of the CNP. 10. Our definition of land manager includes crofters, farmers, foresters, gamekeepers, landowners and conservationists. Land may be owned by private businesses, NGOs, Charitable Trusts, community groups and public agencies. We seek a level playing field for all land managers and wish to work with all to help them deliver a range of public benefits. 11. The priority objectives for public benefits to be delivered across the CNP are identified and agreed through an inclusive process, which involves a range of stakeholders and implements all four aims. 12. The land manager agrees a voluntary, individual, Land Management Contract (LMC) between him/herself and the public through the single authority administering the scheme, which identifies what will be delivered, and for what reward. The plan describes the management options which deliver the priority objective to be achieved, rather than inflexible prescriptions. The plan is for the whole land management unit, includes all public support and replaces all other plans. More information on the adoption of LMCs as the tool for delivering integrated land management is in appendix 1. 13. Although the LMC will be based on an individual unit, it is essential that there is collaboration between neighbouring holdings. Collaboration is essential for the delivery of public benefits on a landscape scale, for example the development of a footpath across holdings. Therefore, mechanisms need to be developed so that the there is co-ordination between plans. There is already good collaboration in the CNP between some land units, for example for deer management to be built upon. 14. The land manager receives training and is able to get advice on developing and delivering the plan from a project officer. The project officer, a generalist, can get support from specialists. The land manager and project officer have easy access to digital information about the key priorities for the unit. The land manager revisits and develops the plan with the project officer regularly. 15. Monitoring and evaluation is an essential part of LMCs. Monitoring of uptake of management priorities is a key priority. Monitoring the state of the priorities is also undertaken. Red tape is reduced through minimising the current high number of different monitoring visits to land managers. A wide range of stakeholders are involved in advising on the results of monitoring to ensure a better scheme. 16. Our overriding principles for LMCs are that they should lead to the enhanced delivery of public benefits. To this end they should be: voluntary, transparent, offer value for money, supported by advice and training, reduce red tape and bureaucracy, work with the practicalities of land management and be based on sound evidence. Recommendation 17. Board is asked to endorse the vision for how public sector support can help land managers deliver enhanced public benefits. Methods of Determining Payment Rates for the Delivery of Public Benefits by Land Managers 18. A key issue that has arisen is how to ‘value’ or quantify payment rates for land managers. This means how to define a payment rate for an output. Traditional support for production has been on value per unit basis, for example per cattle. The value is designed to encourage appropriate uptake of the scheme, and meet the needs of stakeholders. However, schemes that support the delivery of public benefits such as the Rural Stewardship Scheme are more based on ‘income forgone’ calculations, where the payment reflects the ‘cost’ of the activity to the farmer, based on market rates. 19. It is essential that support for the delivering of public benefits by land managers be fair, transparent and offer value for money. Crucially, support must also be designed so that it is uptaken by land managers. For example, anecdotal evidence suggests that some prescriptions of the LMC menu scheme in 2005 were more popular than others, precisely because they had more attractive payment rates for the activity required. 20. We suggest that payment rates for support for the delivery of public benefits are designed to provide good value for money, and be at a rate where the prescription is uptaken. There should be no set mechanism such as ‘income forgone’, where possible, in calculating the payment. 21. Currently, many schemes are tightly prescriptive in their design. This means that they set out precise management, and so focus on the ‘means’ of achieving an objective, rather than the end result. However, there are many variations in climate, geography and land management which mean that an over-prescriptive approach does not always work. We propose to design schemes to be less prescriptive, and more focused on the outputs they achieve. For example, for prescriptions for breeding waders, rather than specifying dates when stock are excluded from areas, it may be more helpful to specify the length of vegetation required. 22. A change to these more ‘output’ lead prescriptions appeal to the entrepreneurial nature of land managers. This change requires more support and advice to be available to land managers. Where possible, this advice should be based on sound research. Recommendation 23. Board is asked to endorse the proposals for determining payment rates for land managers. Funding Mechanisms Available For Land Managers 24. There is a strong case for making enhanced public support available to land managers in the CNP. The Cairngorms have been designated as a special place, and require adequate support to conserve and enhance the special qualities produced by all land managers. We would ensure that the land managers in the Cairngorms are not compromised through involvement in a regional rather than a national scheme. 25. Some national schemes currently have mechanisms which place an upper cap on the amount available for unit. For example, the Rural Stewardship ranking scheme is strongly weighted to favour applications with funding of under £4,000 per annum. We would be keen to encourage mechanisms which allocate funding to a unit according to the benefits it produces in the context of the Cairngorms. There are several possible mechanisms for doing this which we would explore in developing the ILM Action Plan: a) An allocation for each land management unit reflecting its size b) An allocation for each land management unit reflecting its opportunities to deliver priority objectives. c) Allocations for each objective, which land managers then bid for (the ‘Challenge Fund’ approach), d) Amounts related to the modulated funds from each land management unit. 26. Funding should be available to support all land managers in the CNP to deliver those public benefits that are priorities, where these are not supported by private objectives. However, changes in funding available to different land management sectors should be carefully analysed to prevent any loss of current public benefits delivered. For example, levels of support that currently fund farmers and crofters to deliver biodiversity through the Rural Stewardship Scheme should not be transferred to fund farmers and crofters to provide access infrastructure. Recommendation 27. Board is asked to endorse the design of funding mechanisms for public benefits The Locational Targeting of Support for Providing Public Benefits 28. An important principle is that support for land managers to deliver public benefits is voluntary and that management options would be open to all in the National Park. Nevertheless, there may be some management options that we wish to target to certain locations. For example, positive work for designations, access infrastructure for the core path network or for management for species that require management across several land units. 29. We propose the targeting of certain locations of the CNP for priority objectives. The targeted areas would be identified as ‘preferred uptake locations.’ These preferred uptake locations would be identified through consultation, and targeted through advisors, or through enhanced payment rates. Recommendation 30. Board is asked to endorse the locational targeting of support for the delivery of public benefits. Advice, Training, Monitoring and Feedback 31. In addition to public funding, the provision of advice, training, monitoring and feedback is essential to the success of a programme for delivering public benefits. 32. We manage the Cairngorms Land Based Businesses Training Project (LBBTP). This has been extremely successful in engaging land based businesses in the building of skills and sharing experiences and expertise. Courses are locally run and locally relevant. It has been successful as it is voluntary, there is close liaison with clients and trainers to identify and deliver their needs and it provides easy access to training, and the opportunity for land managers to network with each other. Further information is given in the Board decision paper on options for the future of this project, also presented at this meeting. 33. We propose that through the continuation of the LBBTP, training would be an essential ingredient to the success of public sector support for land managers to provide public benefits. Training would need to be in several areas: a) To provide information about public support available and help land managers to engage with it, and develop their plans b) To provide information to implement public sector support, for example in access infrastructure, how to plan a path, and c) To help develop the business as a thriving business is better placed to support a wider range of public benefits. 34. Several kinds of advice should be provided in the Cairngorms, including easy access to written information on schemes and mechanisms for promptly responding to queries about schemes. We also wish to make available access to written advice on implementing management options as part of design of schemes. 35. The highest priority would be to build a system of providing free one-to-one personal advice for land managers. This would build on the current work done through the Whole Farm Review Scheme and the accreditation of advisors. Our vision is that in the ‘one stop shop’ approach, each land manager would have access to and build a relationship with a project officer, who would act as first point of contact, draw up initial schemes, be available for queries, and annually review the scheme. This project officer would be a generalist and would need support from other, specialist advisors. The project officer would need to undertake a programme of training and skills development. By reducing the prescriptiveness of management options (see above), we expect there to be a much increased need for advice. However, this would lead to a more efficient use of public money for supporting the delivery of public benefits. 36. All support for advice and demonstration would be on the basis of best practice management. Recommendation 37. Board is invited to endorse the proposals for advice, training, monitoring and feedback. Policy Context Draft Park Plan 38. The policies in this paper will enable the completion of the action plan for integrated land management, which is one of the priorities for action in the draft Nationals Park Plan. 39. The policies in this paper will also help deliver all of the priorities for action in the draft National Park Plan: a) Conserving and enhancing the Park’s biodiversity and landscapes b) Developing sustainable deer management c) Providing high quality outdoor access opportunities d) Making housing more affordable and sustainable e) Making tourism and business more sustainable f) Increasing awareness and understanding of the park. CNPA Corporate Plan 40. The Integrated Land Management work helps deliver many aspects of the four aims of the CNP. It is relevant to the following goals of our Corporate Plan: a) Goal 2: National Park Plan in place by end of 2006. b) Goal 4 Increased access to all forms of housing tenure for Park residents or people who are meeting economic or social needs within the Park. c) Goal 9: Good quality outdoor access infrastructure in place and maintained. d) Goal 10: Arrangements in place to meet needs of visitors, land managers and communities for information, management of access. e) Goal 11: Wide range of opportunities to experience the special qualities of the Park in a sustainable manner is available to all, f) Goal 12: Public benefits which can be produced by land managers defined and supported through publicly funded integrated schemes. g) Goal 13: Good communication and consultation by land managers on objective setting for public benefits h) Goal 14: Residents, businesses, organisations and visitors contribute to the protection and enhancement of wildlife, cultural and natural resources. i) Goal 15: Stronger and more diverse economic opportunities within the CNP area. j) Goal 16: An increase in the value of sustainable tourism spend. k) Goal 17: Increased community capacity to deliver 4 aims of the Park. l) Goal 20: Good understanding and appreciation by young people of the CNP and appreciation of its importance. National Policy 41. The challenge of integrated land management is to influence national policies to deliver joined up support on the ground. The policies in this paper will help provide leadership for working with partners to adapt national policies towards the delivery of the special qualities of the CNP. Delivering Sustainability 42. Encouraging and increasing the delivery of public benefits in the CNP will lead to economic, environmental and social sustainability of the land managers, and also the wider context in which they operate, including those of their local communities. Delivering a Park for All 43. The integrated land management work will contribute towards the aspiration to deliver a Park for all in several ways. It will promote consultation and communication on the public benefits to be produced and the support to produce them. This will enable more people from wider backgrounds get a great understanding of and influence the public benefits produced by land managers. It also provides the opportunity to provide more and better targeted access opportunities for all. Delivering Economy, Effectiveness and Efficiency 44. A key driver for integrating public sector support and administration is to provide a more efficient delivery for both the taxpayer, and land managers. Implications Financial Implications 45. For the CNPA, the financial implications are through staff time meeting with agencies and partners to develop the action plan. The current operational plan and forthcoming operational plans both contain a small level of funding for work to support the development of the action plan. Presentational Implications 46. We will continue to place a strong emphasis on communicating our work on integrated land management to a variety of stakeholders. The forthcoming consultation on the Draft Park Plan offers an opportunity to do this, for example through meetings with groups of land managers. Implications for Stakeholders 47. The development of the integrated land management work action plan will lead to major opportunities for land managers and public agencies. We wish to build on national changes and act as pilots. It is not expected that there will be changes over night, and managing change will be an important aspect of the action plan. Appendix 1 sets these potential changes out in greater detail. Next Steps 48. The integrated land management action plan will be developed in collaboration with partners over the next few months. We will bring an update to Board on progress in the summer, before it is finalised in September 2006. We will also be responding to the forthcoming Rural development Regulation consultation, which will come to Board in the next few months. FIONA NEWCOMBE WILL BOYD-WALLIS February 2005 fionanewcombe@cairngorms.co.uk willboydwallis@cairngorms.co.uk Integrated Land Management: Background 1. The purpose of this appendix is to provide some background and an update on the integrated land management strategy. It is not an overview of all the work being delivered on land management issues. During the next 9 months, we will be developing an action plan for its delivery. Integrated Land Management Strategy 2. The Integrated Land Management strategy framework, agreed by Board states that a) that the CNPA should work towards a long term vision for the area in which land is managed in an integrated manner in order to deliver a wide range of private and public interest management objectives in line with the aims for the CNP set down by government in the founding legislation; b) that in order to achieve this the CNPA should work with land managers and other interests in order to achieve an effective dialogue between all interests so as to agree management objectives for individual management units through an inclusive and transparent consultative process; c) that in order to enable delivery of these management objectives, the CNPA should work with partner agencies and other interests in order to achieve effective publicly (and perhaps privately) funded incentive schemes across all land use types in the CNP. 3. These aims are ambitious. There has been much talk about delivering land management in a more integrated way, and this is reflected in many public sector longterm policies and programmes. Nevertheless, the aims do constitute a new way of delivering public sector support in rural Scotland. Why Do We Want Integrated Land Management? 4. We wish to achieve a better co-ordination and planning of public sector activity. This will mean that the existing public benefits that are delivered by land managers are safeguarded. We also wish to support our land managers to deliver more public benefits. It will also avoid the two further situations that currently arise and cause barriers to the delivery of public benefits by land managers: a) Conflicting advice by two public agencies. There have been several examples recently where public agencies acting in good faith and undertaking their statutory roles give conflicting advice on a piece of land. The land manager is left in a quandary. While the CNPA plays a role in resolving these conflicts, there are no widely recognised mechanisms in place to prevent them happening. b) A land manager has a public benefit that they wish to deliver, or are currently delivering but is under threat, and there is no public sector activity that will support it. Funding in the public sector will always be tight, and there are no blank cheques to provide open ended funding. However, if it is a priority public benefit, then we would wish to find ways of agreeing support for its delivery. 5. This is a hugely complex task and involves influencing national policy. To give an idea of the complexity, some measures funded by the public sector that we wish to include in the integrated land management work include: Single Farm Payment Less favoured Area Support Scheme Rural Stewardship scheme Organic aid scheme Processing and Marketing grant scheme Farm Business Development Scheme Agricultural Business Development Scheme Land Based Business Training Project Scottish Forestry Grant Scheme including locational premium National Forest Land scheme Crofting counties agricultural support scheme Croft Entrant Scheme Croft House Grant Scheme SNH’s Natural care schemes National Nature Reserve Management Agreements SSSI Management agreements LIFE projects Cairngorms Moorland Project Dee Catchment Management Plan Spey Catchment Management Plan Esk Catchment Management Plan River Basin Management plans SEPA’s regulatory role SEERAD’s regulatory role SNH’s regulatory role Historic Scotland’s regulatory role Advisory services provided the Scottish Agricultural College Advisory services provided by FWAG Cairngorms LBAP National Park Plan Local Plan Deer priority sites process Sustainable deer management project Upper Dee Access Trust Eastern Cairngorms access project Access strategies Home improvement grants Rural Development facilitators River Dee access and fishing strategy Ranger services 6. It has proved necessary to have detailed discussions with a wide variety of partner agencies, stakeholders and land managers to explain the purpose of the strategy and explore opportunities for joint working. The wide range of partners in the public sector alone that we are working with on this include the Scottish Executive, Scottish Natural Heritage, Crofters Commission, Deer Commission Scotland, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the four Local Authorities, the Local Enterprise Companies and Historic Scotland. What might integrated land management look like? 7. For the land manager, this will look like a ‘one-stop-shop’ approach to public sector support. The land manager will have one land management contract which describes all the public benefits that he/she will deliver on their holding and the training and payments he/she requires to deliver them. Advice and information will be available and there will be regular feedback on the implementation of the LMC. There will be one main point of contact for the LMC, and so the land manager will not have to negotiate with several public agencies. The land manager will decide the exact management required to achieve the public benefits identified, and physical and climatic variations will be identified. 8. For the public agencies, this means a major change in the way their objectives are delivered. Rather than individual agencies each trying to deliver their own objectives, each with separate arrangements for the design, delivery, regulation, monitoring and evaluation of their programmes, there will be a form of a one stop shop with one organisation delivering schemes. There are two main ways this could be delivered: a) Through a single organisation responsible for leading the delivery of LMCs, replacing all existing agencies at a regional level, or b) Through collaboration between agencies that delivers a single front to land managers through a customer delivery service. For example, CNPA, SEERAD, FCS, CC, DCS and SNH may jointly fund advisory officers for LMCs. The organisations would have a say in setting the overall objectives for LMCs, and be responsible for monitoring their delivery. The officers would be responsible for advising land managers on their options, helping them design their plans, and provide them with feedback on their implementation. 9. Either way, there will be a need to be a system for setting of objectives and identifying the location where objectives should be uptaken. Regulation will still be an important role, but this will be co-ordinated. Whether it is a one stop shop, or a co-ordinated delivery service, expert information and advice will be needed. 10. For other stakeholders like tourism businesses, local communities and NGOs, there would be a greater opportunity to understand the contribution of land management to the CNP. They would also be able to help set the objectives for public funding, and see the benefits purchased with public money. Work Undertaken Towards Developing Integrated Land Management Identifying the Public Benefits to be Delivered by Land Managers 11. With such a plethora of schemes doing many things, and limited public support, we recognised the importance of identifying and prioritising the key public benefits that we wish to buy from land managers in the Cairngorms. That is, the outcomes of the integrated land management strategy. Consultations have been undertaken, with open meetings, and an initial list and draft prioritisation statement drawn up. This work will be refined in the future. The key to this is involving land managers and local and national stakeholders, as well as public agencies. Rothiemurchus Estate 12. We are also leading a project which is planning the future of public support for Rothiemurchus Estate. We are working with the Estate and all the public agencies to assess the public benefits delivered in the last 5 years. We will then prioritise the public benefits to be delivered in the next few years, and set out a plan for their support. The project includes consultation with local and national stakeholders. This project is a single unit ‘case study’, reflecting the general approach that we wish to adopt across the CNP. Influencing the new Rural Development Regulation 13. In addition to the strategic and case study work described above towards the longterm development of integrated land management, we have also been influencing the new Rural Development Regulation that starts in January 2007. We recognised that this would be a major opportunity for delivering the aspirations for integrating schemes, and local decision making. CAP Reform and the Rural Development Regulation: Changes to Funding in the Countryside Introduction 14. There are major changes happening in the Common Agricultural Policy and funding for rural development. It was felt that it would be useful to provide some information to Board about these changes, and their possible implications for the delivery of public benefits in the CNP. This is a very simple overview, and non technical language has been used where possible. What are the Changes? 15. Farmers and crofters used to receive payments for the numbers of cattle, sheep and amount of cereals produced. In 2003 in the CNP, the payments made this way totalled approx. £4.5million, whereas the gross margin of agriculture was £8.5 million. These payments therefore play an important part in the viability of farming enterprises in the area. 16. These payments have now been disbanded and replaced by the ‘single farm payment.’ To receive this payment, the farmer/crofter has to keep land in good condition. The payment rate for each farmer/crofter is a percentage of what he/she used to receive. This percentage is decreasing with time, lowering the amount paid to the farmer/crofter. 17. The change has many consequences for the delivery of special qualities in the National Park. It is helpful that payment is no longer linked to cattle/sheep, as this restricted the ability of farmers and crofters to respond to the market, and is linked to environmental damage in some areas. However, it weakens the support to farmers and crofters which means that they are less viable. It also means that there is less incentive to keep animals. Grazing animals, especially cattle are often vital to providing landscape and biodiversity special qualities. 18. In addition, this remaining payment is under political threat, both from the pressure on the EU budget, and the perception that farmers and crofters are paid to do nothing. A review of the single farm payment is planned for 2008, and it is expected to be phased out over the next few years. The Rural Development Regulation 19. For the last 6 years, a Rural Development Regulation has been the umbrella term for the EU schemes such as the Less Favoured Area Support Scheme, the Rural Stewardship Scheme and the Environmentally Sensitive Area scheme. In 2003, payments made through these schemes totalled approx. £0.5 million in the CNP. Payments were made only to farmers and crofters. 20. The Rural Development Regulation has been revised by the EU, and is now radically different to the previous programme. It is open to anybody in rural areas, and contains three main categories, known as ‘axes’: a) Axis 1. Support for rural industries to become more competitive. This includes things like modernisation of buildings, advisory services, quality branding schemes and training. b) Axis 2. Improving the environment and countryside. These include agrienvironment schemes, payments for managing designated sites and funding of access. c) Axis 3. Improving the quality of life in rural areas and the diversification of the rural economy. This includes things like tourism, small economic businesses, and cultural heritage. 21. A further aspect of the revised Rural Development Regulation is the need for a regional Leader Plus Local Advisory Group approach to some or the entire programme. Currently, all decisions about the Rural Development Regulation programmes are made by the Scottish Executive and implemented at a national level. This change from ‘top-down’ to –bottom-up’ means that some or all of the funding will be allocated through a local advisory group, and that there is the opportunity for areas to design their own priorities. 22. This new Rural Development Regulation provides us with many opportunities to deliver many aspects of the National Park Plan. However, there are threats to the current delivery of our special qualities, for example, if funding is withdrawn from current agri-environment schemes. The change also weakens further the support for land managers, as the schemes are now available to a wider range of rural needs. What is the Current Timescale? 23. The new Rural Development Regulation starts in January 2007. Each member state or region draws up a plan for its implementation, picking and choosing from the menu of opportunities. The Scottish Executive is drawing up a plan for Scotland. 24. This is the start of a longterm process. It is not anticipated that there will be a complete scheme or schemes in place for January 2007. There will be a consultation over the next few months which we will respond to, and our response will be brought to Board. What is the Relationship between Land Management Contracts and These Changes? 25. The Scottish Executive is committed to introducing tiered land management contracts as a way of integrating public support for land managers. This includes the single farm payment and current schemes. They plan to eventually introduce schemes under the Rural Development Regulation so that they form the top two tiers of a single land management contract: Figure 1: The three tiered land management contract model Tier 3 Competitive measures only open to some, including measures from all 3 RDR axes. Tier 2 Measures open to all, for example the current LMC menu scheme, including measures from all 3 RDR axes Tier 1 Single Farm Payment 26. It is proposed that LMCs will have 3 tiers: a) Tier 1 would be the single farm payment. b) Tier 2 would be measures that would be open to all, including those from all three axes of the Rural Development Regulation c) Tier 3 would be competitive measures that would only be open to some land managers. These could include payments for managing designated sites, and measures from all three axes of the Rural Development Regulation. 27. The Scottish Executive also wishes to integrate other schemes, including SNH’s natural care scheme, and the Scottish Forestry Grant Scheme into the LMC, so that it becomes a one-stop shop for land managers. It is possible that some RDR schemes will not be delivered through LMCs, for example support for the upgrading of village halls. 28. Key areas that the CNPA have been influencing are: a) The overall shape and design of the Rural Development Regulation, with consultation responses. b) The opportunities that arise from the regionalisation of decision making, with the CNP as a region, to enable us to support land managers to deliver the priority public benefits required to look after the special qualities of the National Park. As well as the development of the Draft Priority Statement, we have also been working on the opportunities that may arise through the building on the Leader approach to decision making. c) The land management planning project, which is looking at the ways of delivering LMCs. Increasing Communication and Consultation by Land Managers 29. The second bullet point of the integrated land management strategy framework is to work with land managers and other interests in order to achieve an effective dialogue between all interests so as to agree management objectives for individual management units through an inclusive and transparent consultative process. 30. To date, this work has had three main strands: a) Delivering training through the Land Based business Training Project which was well received, and further courses are planned b) The communication and consultation grants scheme which will be launched shortly. It’s main objective to enable two-way dialogue between land managers and national and local stakeholders and there has been interest in it from land managers. c) Reactive work where we have been giving advice to a range of land managers and other stakeholders to improve the dialogue between them. This reactive workload has been large, indicating the need for support for improving dialogue.