1. HLS Delivery Programme
AESG meeting
John Finnie

2. Contents
HLS programme (including expiring ‘classic’ agreements ) 2012/13 HLS programme (including expiring ‘classic’ agreements) Historic & Traditional Buildings expenditure Determining capital spend under HLS

3. HLS programme
Last year, NE offered 1,656 HLS agreements worth £39.4m, covering 166 k ha under HLS options.
This year Defra has given NE £41m to offer and asked that it covers at least 250 k ha under HLS options.
NE has also been asked to increase the number of new HLS agreements. This year, we aim for around 2400.
NE has also been asked to deliver HLS more effectively (through ‘refocusing’) and more efficiently (by faster 3-tier processes and fewer staff).

4. HLS programme (2)
In order to make sure we do deliver the full budget, we are working with farmers on >2400 agreements worth >£41m.
So Local Advisers started working on 2936 potential agreements, worth £46m and have given 2,504 approvals to FEP.
We have already completed 1560 agreements worth £26.3m. We are on track to complete £41m.
As usual, we shall balance the budget by balancing the proposed start dates between 2011/12 and 2012/13.

5. HLS programme (3)
The table shows the number agreements completed to date, the number on which we are working and the total budget.

6. 1. 2011-12 HLS programme (4) Classics
Overall transfer from classics to HLS, measured by area, is now 48%. (The overall transfer rate to ES is now 85%).
2,587 classic agreements covering 124,855 ha expire in 11/12.
Currently we expect that about 962 will go into HLS. c631 of these will start in 11/12 and c331 in 12/13.
We will also be taking forward 205 agreements from classics that expired in earlier years, which for various reasons were not be brought into HLS before.

7. 1. 2011-12 HLS programme (5) Classics
As well as the 962 and 205 ex-classic agreements, we are also working this year on applications for >500 classic agreements that expire in 12/13 onwards.
Our general aim now is that where HLS is the appropriate successor to the classic agreement, we aim to make the transfer in the same financial year as the classic agreement expires.
In parallel to this, we will no longer generally be bringing forward new proposals for early closure of classics.

8. 1. 2011-12 HLS programme (6) Classics
This change will mean:
Simpler compliance with scheme rules, especially around UTP payments.
Spreading the peak of FEP work for expiries by using the window between ‘live dates’ and ‘start dates’, which allows us to commission and pay for FEPs earlier than before.
Removing the risk of a potential anomaly with some farmers having to wait for HLS whilst others are brought forward early.
Note:
The new aim to avoid early closures will have to be brought in sensibly, taking account of how far proposals have progressed.
501 early transfers proposals have already been raised and 241 have already been formally offered.

9. HLS programme
Under our new 3-tier procedures, we can now start to share information with you on the 12/13 programme, earlier than ever before.
Subject to the final budget, we are again planning to offer about £41m.

10. HLS programme (2)
The 12/13 programme splits roughly into two parts.
Agreements that need to start in May 2012 when former classics expire (expiries on 30/4/12).
We have already given approval to commission a FEP in 576 cases.
The bulk of agreements, which are not tied to classic agreements expiring early in 12/13.

11. HLS (4)
For the bulk of the proposed agreements, the process has five main stages:
Initial scoping of potential HLS cases by NE advisers, plus partners’ advice
Contacting farmers and inviting them to contact FEP agents
Clinics with FEP agents
Approval by NE of proposed programme
Formal approval to farmer or agent to commission the FEP (if not “fast-track”) and submit the application
= refining down to 12/13 programme

12. HLS (3)
-Initial scoping of potential HLS cases by NE advisers, plus partners’ advice
Contacting farmers and inviting them to contact FEP agents
Clinics with FEP agents (approx)
Approval by NE of proposed programme...?October
Formal approval to commission the FEP and submit the application ?

13. HLS (4)
Progress towards establishing the 12/13 programme

14. HLS (5) Classics
HLS)
4,604 classic agreements covering 149,903 ha expire in 12/13.
Local advisers have completed an initial sift of the 4604 and identified /13 expiring classics that might merit HLS. These need further refining.
Those that at the initial sift looked to merit ELS rather than HLS will be offered ETIP advice. Letters to such farmers whose agreements expire on 1 May 2012 have already been sent.
Note:

15. 3. Historic & Traditional Buildings expenditure
Budget for HTB is separate from the main HLS budget.
In 2010/11 we spent £6m (up from 2.9m the year before.)
We have a budget of £8m this year.
We have a budget of £13m from April 2012 to December 2013.

16. 3. Historic & Traditional Buildings expenditure (2)
Demand is there for the full £21m
Selection is already on a coordinated national basis, developed with English Heritage.
Defra have asked us to limit spending to £150k per case, to allow support to be provided for more individual cases.

17. 4. Determining capital spend under HLS
Capital works come from the same HLS budget at other options, except for access and historic buildings. (They have separate budgets.)
See reference to capital works from May AESG presentation:
REFOCUSING OF HLS RESOURCES: AMPLIFIED GUIDANCE BEYOND LAMIN 46/10
PRIORITISATION OF OPTIONS WITHIN APPLICATIONS
This will be the principal way of seeking to use HLS money more effectively for the immediate tranche of offers for 10/11 and 11/12 start dates, for applications where we have already agreed that a FEP can be carried out.
A. Defra Policy considerations
Proposed options will be reduced in the following ways to free up funds for priority options agreements
- Remove all access revenue options.
- Remove access capital options that are no longer sensible in the light of the removal of access revenue options.
- Remove all HTB spend above the Defra policy limit
B. Natural England Targeting statement considerations
Proposed options can be reduced in the following ways to free up funds for priority options and agreements
-Reconsider options which are not directly relevant to the statements for target areas or Regional themes. Any theme-based options within target areas should be reconsidered.
-Give first priority to the features identified in the statements as ‘especially’ or ‘particularly’ desirable and reconsider all which are not so listed. Thus in the random example below, the focus within the first three categories should be on lowland meadows and wood pastures, or Iron Age settlements, or deer parks.
• Maintain/Restore/Create the following priority habitats: fen, limestone and dry acid grassland, parkland, but especially lowland meadows and wood pasture
• Positive management of visible and below ground archaeological and historic features that are assessed as a priority in the region such as iron age settlements
• Protect, maintain and restore historic landscapes and their features, such as parkland where they are assessed as a priority in the region, particularly deer parks
• Maintain or restore historic buildings that are assessed as a priority in the region
• Create new permissive access where there is identified demand or need in order to link people with places, enhance existing networks and/or provide opportunity to improve people’s understanding of the farmed environment through educational access
(Note: this simple example is a target area that was selected for historic and biodiversity ES objectives. Resource protection and the other ES objectives are target features in other target areas.)
C. Natural England Target delivery considerations
Proposed options can be reduced to free up funds for more priority options and agreements by making sure we do not over-deliver on individual targets, especially at the expense of targets where we are falling short.
Within a given objective, we need to focus HLS resources on those targets where we are falling short and away from targets where we are exceeding our plans. For example with BAP, it will generally be the case that Regions will still need to go further to hit their HLS habitat maintenance targets, whereas they will be much closer to their HLS habitat creation target or HLS farmland bird target. Once the Regional HLS pipeline has sufficient habitat creation or farmland bird agreements to hit those particular Regional targets, then no more such options need be offered for that year.
However, in applying this principle, we need to make sure we do not miss good opportunities to carry forward achievements from year to year through an excessive focus on a single year’s targets.
D. Reconsideration of capital works proposals
Proposed options can be reduced to free up funds for more priority agreements by making sure we limit capital works to those which are essential to deliver individual key outcomes and targets.
Within the new HLS budget, we now need to focus capital works on the most essential measures. Some capital works are directly essential to delivery of the key outcomes and we must continue to fund these.
We should plan to include all the essential capital works within the CWP drawn up at the start of the agreement, rather than plan to make substantial additions in later years. This streamlining may in fact have advantages for some agreement holders.
E. ELS Options
Natural England already seeks to focus ELS on our priority targets. We do this generally through ETIP advice. Where advisers are in turn also considering an HLS agreement, we should seek to maximise the delivery of targets through ELS points and reduce the use of ‘more of the same’ options as much as possible, to free up funds for supporting management under HLS that cannot be delivered under ELS at all.
F Farmland Bird options
Research indicates that farmland bird HLS options on 7-10% of a holding will be sufficient for the farmland bird needs across that holding. Thus farmland bird options should generally be limited to no more than 10% of the holding, in order to free up funds for more priority agreements
G Use of HLS Supplements
Proposed options can be reduced to free up funds for more priority agreements by making tighter use of supplements. Supplements should be applied where they are essential to support additional management beyond the underlying HLS option, in order to meet the specific Indicators of Success. Supplements should not be used on “more of the same” options.
The HR1 Cattle grazing supplement should available on all common land for the duration of an agreement. It should otherwise be used only if cattle grazing is essential to deliver specific indicators of success.
The HR2 Native breeds at risk supplement should be used only where the rare breed is the appropriate grazing animal and only for breeding herds/flocks (so that the genetic reservoir can be increased). As is already current policy, this option is not available on common land.
The HR7 Difficult sites supplement should be directed at sites which are at real risk of loss of management; or where are significant welfare issues associated with changing from sheep to cattle systems; or where grazing management is being reintroduced to urban sites where special welfare factors for livestock grazing apply.
H Hedgerow options
Proposed options can be reduced to free up funds for more priority agreements by making a more targeted use of. HB11 & 12 hedgerow options. These options should now normally only be used on hedgerows on parish boundaries and other hedges of agreed historic significance; or on hedgerows linking identified significant BAP habitats; or on hedges around fields under another HLS option where this is necessary for the effective delivery of that option. In addition, we should also normally, but not absolutely, apply a limit of 20% of the total length of hedges on the holding under those options.
MANAGING CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS
The Defra announcements have made it clear that the applications in hand which are not yet formal offers will be subject to reconsideration and re-focusing. By cutting back on the breadth of options within agreements, we can free up funds for more agreements and more key options.
We need to recognise that ES budgets have fluctuated in the past. The overall HLS budget now after the CSR is still as large as the budget deployed last year.
Where the desired minimum target-based options are simply unpalatable without any additional options, we may inevitably have to consider broadening the scope and cost of agreements. However, Regions are expected to do all they can to limit this, to free money for more key options and agreements.
V8 24/3/10
We aim to fund a large number of HLS agreements and more extensive agreements, by focusing new capital payments on works which are essential to deliver individual key outcomes and targets.

18. Contents Likely agreement numbers
Basis for HLS agreement and option selection
Working with stakeholders and partners.